The Quantonics Society News for 2004
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

This is our year 2004 editorial

Go directly to 2004 News

"Did you miss it, or did you miss it?"

William Forrester to Jamal Wallace, near end of movie, Finding Forrester.

"Not exactly a soup question, is it?"

Jamal Wallace to William Forrester, near end of movie, Finding Forrester.

"What if you had a chance to completely reset Earth societies and start over, your way, like pushing a reboot button on a PC?"

"When did the body first set out on its own adventures? Snowman thinks; after having ditched its old traveling companions, the mind and the soul, for whom it had once been considered a mere corrupt vessel or else a puppet acting out the dramas for them, or else bad company, leading the other two astray. It must have got tired of the soul's constant nagging and whining and the anxiety-driven intellectual web-spinning of the mind, distracting it whenever it was getting its teeth into something juicy or its fingers into something good. It had dumped the other two back there somewhere, leaving them stranded in some damp sanctuary or stuffy lecture hall while it made a beeline for the topless bars, and it had dumped culture along with them: music and painting and poetry and plays. Sublimation, all of it; nothing but sublimation, according to the body. Why not cut to the chase?

"But the body had its own cultural forms. It had its own art. Executions were its tragedies, pornography was its romance."

Oryx and Crake, p. 85, 1st ed. hardbound, by Margaret Atwood, 2003.

"Can a single ant be said to be alive, in any meaningful sense of the word, or does it only have relevance in terms of its anthill?"

Oryx and Crake, p. 371.

"What is anthill?"

"What is body? What is mind?" What is society?

"Can body dominate society? Can mind dominate society?"

"What is minus? What is not? What is not not?"

"What are 'unintended consequences?'"

"What is classical negation vis-à-vis quantum negation, and how do human beliefs in these notions affect classical- and quantum- both individual intellectual and social -Static Pattern of Value behaviors?"

"Not exactly soup questions...are they?"

Doug Renselle to Students of Quantonics for Feuilleton Installment III, 1Jan2004.

"What did Snowman do?" (What will Homo sapiens sapiens do? Neo neo sapiens?)

Thank you for reading. Doug - 1Jan2004.

(If you haven't read Atwood's Oryx and Crake,
we suggest that you do. Terrorism isn't just classically external...
You'll love its font, and it is one of Earth's fastest reads we have recently encountered.)

November, 2004 News:

"Quantum probability issi quantum~complementary, animate, everywhere~included~middle~associative, self and other referencing networkings of partially both emerging and demerging quantum~omnistributioning~likelihoodings."

In Quantonics, a least "self and other referencing networkings of partially both emerging and demerging quantum~omnistributioning~likelihoodings" we call a "fuzzon."

Doug - 2Nov2004.

"Music is nowings' edgings pursuings whatings happenings nextings...

Doug - 13Nov2004.

"...the music of a well-ordered age is calm and cheerful, and so is its government. The music of a restive age is excited and fierce, and its government is perverted. The music of a decaying state is sentimental and sad, and its government is imperiled."

Spring and Autumn
Lü Bu We

"While classical socialism restively whines, quantum capitalism pragmatically does."

Doug - 13Nov2004.

"Classical thing-king is contradiction."

Doug - 27Nov2004.

"Dialectical agreement and common sense do not scale, and they never will."

Doug - 28Nov2004.

November of each year is special for us in Quantonics. It is our yearly news' last month. December appears as our first monthly installment of each year.

As we mature, Novembers apparently, to us, are closer and closer together. How are they appearing to increase in rate? One quantonics' explanation is that as we age our personal fermionic (material) sensory bandwidth's center frequency decreases, while our isosensory bandwidth's center frequency increases, a quantum tell of genuine quantum complementarity of actuality and nonactuality. We graphically show those words in our Quantum Reality Loop Generation III.

November, for us, is also a kind of annual commencement of quantum graduation, too. It feels good and better and Valuable, but it also feels genuinely that our gain quantum complementarily juxtaposes some losses. Aging is one of those... It also, for us, elicits a new way of thinking that real quantum life is cyclic, much like Hesse described in his Magister Ludi: Knecht, then Turu, then Josephus, then Dasa, then... And we recall his words in his poem Stages, "Serenely let us move to distant places, and let no sentiments of home detain us..." And Frost's Reluctance similarly,

"Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?"

We feel those emotional Value sentiments more strongly each passing year, a kind of build-up to a life commencement with all that anticipation and wonder we felt when we graduated high school and college. That's about as quantum as it can be for any typical Earth bound human at Millennium III's beginning.

Doug is looking forward with great awe and great expectation to that imminent commencement, that spiritual, pinching quantum faith ascension. Only tentatively, we lose actual touch and we gain nonactual isotouch, a pure isoenergetic compenetration which tentatively isoawakens us and helps us choose whither and thither quanton(isopinching,pinching), whither and thither quanton(isobeing,being).

As we move closer to isobeing, material (actual) frequencies appear faster. As we enter isobeing everything is vastly too isofast. We see brilliant lightings. Pure isoflux! But with isohelp we rapidly isoascend. Lower isoenergies isoemerge. Reality's quantum emergence~demergence cyclicity vivifies. Thence everywhere massively superposing isoassociationings. Isoenlightenment!

To isobe and to be, that is what we are questionings! Quantum straddlings may be our answerings...

Some of you may recognize a quantumesque Milton here, except we might call it Recursing Quantum Paradice Retained.

An old way of thingking. A quantum n¤vel way of thinking.


Did you vote well? Are you, like Doug, eating crow?

Are you growing any frustration with either or? Either Democrat or Republican? Dichon(Kerry, Bush)? Dichon(majority, minorities)?

Are you still proud to be called "a citizen of USA?"

Has every individual citizen been served? Will they be well served?


From our Pacer-biased perspective, Detroit sux! What kind of troglodytic slime is oozing there?

You may recall a gang rape of a woman after a hockey game outside Cobo Hall there a couple of decades ago... A huge oozing crowd stood and ooze-watched... doing naught to help that poor woman...

Troglodytic blyss pluss ooze...

A Time of Their Raping...

Now Detroit, Notown, throws beer, chairs and popcorn: pedophilic sportage catholicism.

NBA, as a social organization, you are a HUGE joke: Geertzian pragmatic disassembly!

A tell: society is unsafe. Avoid society. Disassemble society! Encourage society to emerscenture just and only JITness, virtualness, sunsettableness. Nurture individual, respect-filled interrelationships and dump societal hate-filled connections in their almost boundless forms (war, inquisitions, reforms, institutions, polity, absolute social correctness, classical virtue, social nobilitese, mores, perpetuity, tragedy of commons sense, etc.). Rural over urban. Individual innovation above social machinery. Individual QTMs over social-sunsetless-SOMitic-scalarbation.


Micro$lopt claims they have a new search engine which will compete with Google.

When we compare our Google hits to M$ SE hits in our weekly access logs, M$ as we have said prior, just doesn't "get it." We can, more than half of M$ hits, find no assessment which justifies matching a user's pattern with what M$ finds. In our view, from a purely Quantonics' perspective, if you are using M$ to search, you are wasting your time. Doug's opinion!

How often do you find what you are looking for under Google? M$?

And when Google offers a quantum~subjective search lens option, watch out... (that is not an easy innovation to accomplish, however, we sense Google is more qualified to do it; nearly all *IXists are more capable than M$ists in our view)


While oceans roar, societies snore...


Thank you for reading.


October, 2004 News:

"Society does n¤t, cann¤t think. Only individuals can think!"

Doug - 27Oct2004.

We are so close to election day... It seems our world is in an irrevocable chaos. We blame GW Bush and his fundamentalist right-wing idiocy.

400 thousand school kids were polled to see how they would vote for Kerry and Bush. Kerry won in a landslide. At least our kids are on track. They "get it."

Enormous change is imminent folks!


Quantonics is in a very high change rate mode now. Our hard work is paying off in some rather notable ways. Perhaps we should offer a list of advances we experienced here lately:

We are expanding that list as a separate web page, with links and reference material and annals. See our Quantonics' Breakthroughs page.


Thank you for reading.


September, 2004 News:

What is wrong with classical society? "Social values are rules..." Albert Camus.

We found this quote in a foreword to The Rebel.

We have been perusing Camus' The Rebel.

Assessment: Camus uses an 'ultimate dialectic' re: 'opposites' tautologously and self-referently justifying one another: a kind of cojustification via classical contradiction. He calls this absurd. We agree. It is! Exemplar? A is either A or not A, Aristotle's 2nd sillygistic 'law' of ideal dialectical 'logical' contradiction.

Doug - 17Sep2004.
Indeed, as we have been saying, "dialectic is absurd."
Classical 'reason' based upon dialectic is absurd!

" rescue man from destiny is to deliver him to chance."

Camus, The Rebel, p. 30.
Vintage paperback, seventh printing, May, 1960.
In this quote's context Camus refers Epicurus'
clinamen: a ~quantum uncertainty and indeterminacy inherent in atoms.
This hints at our quantonics choosings, chancings, changings quantum ontology.
Too, it compares classical determinism to a more quantum indeterminism.
Camus views history as unicontextual and unitemporal: one history fits all.
That view, "restores destiny to humankind." Unadulterated dogmatic bogosity - Doug.

"Culture may not impose ethics upon individuals without itself being unethical."

Doug - 20Sep2004.

"I have spoken of our craving for understanding, and have mentioned the intellectual passion which impels us towards making ever closer contact with reality. These passions are powerful forces pursuing high hopes. Indeed, if the shaping of knowledge is achieved by pouring ourselves into new forms of existence, the acquisition of knowledge should be found to be motivated by the deepest forces of our being...To a mind on the alert, whatever seems intelligible presents a problem and stirs it to the prospect of discovery. Thus will the active mind avail itself of ever new opportunities to undergo a change that will make it more satisfying to its modified self."

Michael Polanyi, The Study of Man, p. 34 of 102 pages total.
Students of Quantonics, substitute interrelationships for 'contact,' memes for 'forces,'
k~now~ings for 'knowledge,' n¤vel for 'new,' and emerqancies for 'forms.'

"Intelligent Design SOMwits believe God is a mechanic."

Doug - 29Sep2004.

Terrorists evolute~empirically demonstrate a quantum memeo which politicians refuse to admit: quantum individuals will never permit their total dominance by any society.

What is Good about quantum individuals? Individual Value is individual freedom with all individuals respecting all other individuals' freedoms while inventing n¤vel, better means of cooperation among and within all individuals.

Doug - 13Sep2004.

We've been back in Or uh gun a little over two weeks now. It is so refreshing to be Pacific~included~middle. And an anomaly: On September 12, 2004 Indiana had a 3.6 Richter quake 3.6 miles deep 30 miles SE of our abode there. Doug felt some minor tremors there during last two weeks, in August, of our stay. Shrugged them off except for mentioning them to Beth to see if she felt them too. She did not. Hmmm...

Halfway anticipate socialist twildo 'scientific' nutcakes to blame earthquakes, just as they do global warming, on their fellow humans too.

Are we guilty of sunspots too? Supernovae? Black holes? What in a nut's hell...?

Most of these twidlos do not even understand that Earth moves around its solar orbit at about 18 miles per second and our solar system moves around Milky Way at about 180 miles per second. Earth's environs change nondeterministic-periodically and relentlessly at that enormous rate and it takes millions of years for Earth to circumnavigate Milky Way's nondeterministic-periodic orbits. Yet those socialist 'scientists' claim they know what causes global warming... He he, ha ha, ho ho, hay hay, extinction's coming to take twildos away, hey hey. Yea, yea! (yep, twildos and twidlos; those who do not practice ESS)

Brief aside on politics:

We just watched Kerry's-Bush's first 'debate.' Crux for us: Bush is persistently stuck in another poor judgment loop justifying his mistakes with more poor judgment. He says status quo is his way to go. Bush practices stux sux social state-icity. Compare: Kerry is incredibly adaptive, and for us that means he practices evolutionarily stable strategies - strategies of change, flux is crux quantum change.

Both of them claimed it is noble for our young people to go to war and die for their country. Bush sees himself as "the people." So when he uses 'nobility,' for him it is a social pattern of value. Nobility to die as an individual is only noble if an individual sees it that way. Bush knew that, as an individual, when he joined Texas' National Guard to avoid going to 'Nam.

When society uses 'nobility' to control what we think, then it becomes hegemony, societal "tragedy of commons sense" hegemony over individuals. (Ask yourself why we ended 'the draft.' Our view is that we all realized that 'the draft' is an evil social pattern of value borne of social hegemonists' needs.)

It would be interesting to know whether Kerry views nobility as an individual pattern of value or as Bush does now as a social pattern of value. Bush's view harbors great potential for abuse of power: if war is a social pattern of value then nobility must be too, which notion can be used 'socio-logically' to market social patterns of power to individuals.

In our eyes, GWBushagain is guilty of: "sociological abuse of power." He enjoys it too, otherwise he would not keep insisting that he must stay in office in order to save our Great USA.

When GWBushagain can state-ically choose our USA's future by declaring war on another nation which has not performed an 'act of war' against us, GWBushagain has become a danger to himself, our society of individuals, and our world. Using his logic, USSR should have attacked USA long ago as a perceived threat to their national sovereignty. Why didn't we attack them for harboring WMDs? Our leaders then had more 'logic' than Bush and his administration will ever muster.

Bush's mind, to us, is a wasteland of poor judgment. Bush believes war is a social pattern of value which he and his administration can use to create 'democratic' freedom. Ugh! Hocus bogus! Doug's opinions, n¤t the opinions, Doug's opinions.

End aside.

Anyway, critters here in Oregon are not blaming anyone, not starting wars, and having lots of fun ignoring anthropocentric social edicts and maltuitions.

Beth saw our three river otters again and gasped, "look," as we walked. They were staying close together, going under, coming back to surface, going under, and heading back toward home after a jaunt in ocean~river brine.

Doug saw two blows and tried to show Beth, but they didn't recur where we could see them. Then Beth said, a couple of days later, "Thar she blows!" Sure enough we saw seven blows about a quarter mile off our delta. Blows were powerful. One time Beth saw our denizen take a peek. Implication? Gray! They are big whales. Males almost 40 feet (13+ meters) and females almost 55-60 feet (18-20 meters). Gray whales have toughest and heaviest baleen and they bottom feed small critters. They dive, munch, almost-surface (which process washes and filter sand away) and blow, dive, munch, almost-surface, and blow. Sometimes peek. No dorsal, say, like Orcas (Grays have a dorsal hump, no fin). We guess blows are five to seven meters high. Dive cycle latency is (depending on depth of water) ~20-30 seconds. You may recall last year Doug saw 14 blows in a parabolic row, but then, further out and in much deeper water, it looked like a chase then instead of bottom nibbling. Grays have longest migration paths of any whale species. They travel more than a third of Earth's circumference, one way. They spend serious time near Oregon coast from about June through September. One gray eats about 350,000 pounds of food a month during feeding cycle. Kids, you probably don't want to keep one of these in your aquarium! (Other whale species migrate Oregon's coast at some other and some overlapping times of year, Humpbacks, for example, whose birthing grounds are in Hawaii and Baha. They feed and breed closer to Arctic.)

Beth saw two stellar jays in trees nearby. Stellars appear less often here than in Sedona.

When we arrived we had ugly looking bird nests over our porch lamps. Perpetrators are swallows which look like yellow finches. Do not know what they are called locally. Their wings have a bat arc reminiscent of a fictional, somewhat cartoonish, stealth fighter. Flight is sporadic and quantized for catching bugs. (Would be good for evasion too. Modern vectored thrust fighters still cannot accomplish what these birds do implicitly though. When we put bosonic skins on them, they should be capable of doing that. But then they should be capable of teleporting, so flight regimes may not be as large an issue.)

Crows are here, in spades. They immediately started showing interest in our presence. We've already gone through at least four boxes of Zestas. Beth just baked them about four dozen fist-sized biscuits. Crows like to pick up their food and fly off with it. In situ dining is not their norm. But they break biscuits up and nibble. Sometimes, if they can grab a big piece, they fly off with it. Last year they issued food calls as soon as they found our treats. This year they fill themselves and then issue food Doug this is quite extraordinary. What changed their behavior? One of crows' fav treats is bones, any kinds of bones. Their beaks can break any bone into tiny pieces.

Note: Beth and Doug only feed birds. In many states it is illegal, dangerous and harmful to our environs and critter-human safety to intentionally and unintentionally feed animals. Oregon has HUGE fines for feeding, for example, seals and sea lions. Not long ago, though, locals killed seals thoughtlessly to prevent them from stealing their salmon catches.

We just found out that Monterey's aquarium has an infant-juvenile great white. Wow! They have never survived captivity, so we may have a precedent in process. Monterey is going to enormous effort to save this little one. Awesome amounts of learning to be had.

Speaking of great whites, Beth came home recently with an incredible story. She volunteers at Oregon's Central Coast aquarium, a very busy and recently much more successful place. (Doug's a member) She meets lots of folk there. Two younger fellas who work there, one of them collects marine specimens for OCC aquarium, were surf boarding off Newport about three weeks ago. They told Beth this chilling story: one of them saw a fin, a lot like what happened in Jaws. He tried to scream to warn his colleague but nothing would come out...he was scared so badly. Fin was headed right for them. He had managed to get up on his board and stand. Other fella had never been able to stand up on his board. Suddenly second fella saw his buddy waving in a panic and pointing. He looked. Adrenalin pumped to max. He stood up...and prayed he could stay standing. He did. Shark made a circle around both. Then made a pass between them. Then circled each. This time it rolled slightly and observed one of his prey, the one who had never been able to stay standing on his board. His prey eyed him right back and held that eidetic embrace. Then shark and fin disappeared into depth and distance. They both hurried back to shore with heart's pounding and literally collapsed of extreme stress on Oregon's beautiful beach. After they could talk about it, they described this great white as (when it partially rolled to stare) two surf board widths thick and at least 3 meters in length. Wow! How fortunate they did not become shark food. Makes one ponder Nature with a tad more respect.

If you get a chance, visit Oregon's OCC aquarium. Beth's special critters there are three non native sea otters which are pretty rare on Earth nowadays. We have native river otters, but our sea otters are gone (probably evolutionary loss of food supply).

No salmon running yet. Seals are just starting to show interest. When salmon are not around seals search along coast. They like shell fish. When salmon run seals come to deltas and feed heartily. But those shellfish are a major problem now, their supply is... Oregon's coastal waters near where we are have suddenly experienced a big decline in oxygen levels. We are experiencing a massive shellfish dieoff. Unsure what is happening... Worry 'bout affects on grays, seals, etc. For now starfish are stuffing themselves, but after that?

Pacific's antics are quantum. No two alike. Self-similarity, yes. Identity, no. Uncertainty abounds. S-he moves sand at will, millions of tons per episode, apparently effortlessly. Awe. Awesome. Awespicious. Yet s-he tells and shows, "we are in he-r and s-he is in us." Thus self-perceived, Dougquanton(DQ,SQ). We have to tell you, honestly, those pounding waves and surf compenetrate our beings. One of Doug's strangest attractors... A holistic, natural love.

We have seen many more surfers this year. More and more folk moving here from other states, many coming from California. Beth and Doug have met two couples from Santa Cruz. One couple just bought property nearby. Another couple came about three years ago.


As you may grasp, our fuzzons are a huge philosophical and physial breakthrough. If you haven't, be sure to check out our QELRs of line and circle. Scale those memeos up to those 'liquid' bots in Terminator. Fuzzons introduce a n¤vel and incredibly potent Quantonics memeology. Automation of fuzzons, however, awaits quantonic versions of general quantum computing. Fuzzons attract multiple physial qubits as Quantum~wave Likelihood Omnistributions, what we call "QLOs." See our 3D Fuzzon and Isofuzzon graphics and descriptions.

And don't miss bottom of page list at our critical review of Jammer's Chapter 8, Quantum Logic from his text The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Many of you are aware this text is one of several references Pirsig used to write his SODV paper for that 1995 Einstein Meets Magritte conference in Brussels, Belgium. We are weighing possibilities of brief reviews of some other chapters in Jammer's text.


Did any of you see Google's aptitude test in latest issue, September, 2004, of Physics Today? Beth just bought IPO stock in Google (this is not a stock recommendation) and we are both fascinated by this company and its almost unlimited potential for growth. You long timers know that we have been recommending Google as a search engine to you since their inception.

Doug couldn't resist taking said test and we decided to share our answers with you just for fun. We are not reproducing Google's questions, so if you want to see them you will have to make a library trip to take a peek.

Doug's Answer 1 - GOOGLE = WWW.COM. (Google is internet-wide business. Extraordinary reach for such a young corporation.)

Doug's Answer 2 - Conifer hemlock — Wu li when winds blow fastest — And strengthens its soul (A Doug question: "Why might 5-8-5 be more natural, physial?")

Doug's Answer 3 - 2211111211

Doug's Answer 4 - (e)

Doug's Answer 5 - We are Unix novices, but issues we know about and experience are: Absence of OO GUI(s) which retains Unix flavors, absence of modular re-use GUI regular expressions, low productivity due learning curve and typecraft and apparently esoteric geek factors, absence of implicit data basing, Unix is formal with totally Aristotelian syntax and internals (our view: all formal languages will perish early in Millennium III), absence of inter-shell implicit mapping and portabilities, absence of operator use transparency at shell command level, when it breaks one almost needs an expert to do repairs, careless folk can easily destroy media content, terrible flat file documentation, etc. That said, we love Unix and are confident its successors shall be potent. Unix needs metadigm~pragmadigm shiftings. It's timings for that to be happenings nowings! Doug - 15Sep2004.

Doug's Answer 6 - (f) none of above

Doug's Answer 7 - (e) all of above

Doug's Answer 8 - 6840 permutations; black, white, sere dun

Doug's Answer 9 - fullness

Doug's Answer 10 - 1 (one) ohm

(classically, it is always one ohm, regardless how far one moves~jumps; if we view resistors as quantons this 'model' offers some very quantum memeology, like a Planck's least action network). Classically technicians want all 1 ohm resistors to be ideally 1 ohm. But real Value has no ideal representation! Ideal implies scalar magnitude stoppable. Real Value is unstoppable!

Philosophically and practically there are enormous problems here. We have no classical means to manufacture and reproduce 'identical' 1 ohm resistors. And if somehow we had 100 (or any number of them) 1 ohm resistors we do not possess technology to assess their 1 ohm 'identities' to arbitrary precision. That's one good exegesis for why resistors are sold with tolerance-indicating codes.

But it may become a lot worse. No two ~1 ohm resistors have identical coefficients of temperature. Nor gravity. Nor atmospheric pressure. Nor hydrological pressure. Nor power limit. Nor voltage limit. Nor capacitance. Nor inductance. Nor shelf life. Nor cooling gradient. Nor impulse response. And almost no one ponders resistors from any quantum included-middle viewpoint (except that resistors' capacitance and inductance offer crude memes of a kind of quantum included-middle; we can use these in some rather awesome ways when we evolve our intellects (quantum stages) from CTMs to QTMs). And so on...

So this network is a genuine fantasy and any mathematics (or any other formal, mechanical language) which describes it (as an ideal formal machination), too, is a fantasy. However, if we modeled each resistor as a pair of fuzzons whose quantum likelihood omnistributions are quantum animate and subjective, we could do quantum modaling of said net. This would be a tad like Einstein's gravity 'curving' space, except also being qubital, EIMA, animate, and adaptive~evolutionary. Wouldn't that approach make great evaluon~Bases of Value Assessment?

Some state-ic exemplars here are "sting and standing, stings and standings, stingings and standingings," "understand and standunder," "knowledge and know ledge," "A is true, A is veritable, A is verity, A is veracious, A is verisimilitude, A is verisimilitudinous...(none of those is present participle; where have all the ingings gone, longings timings passings...)," "learned as a noun, learned as a verb (heteronymicity, pronunciation)," "double as trouble (Say, as in Body Double?)," etc. Now assume text characters, words, paragraphs are evolute with variable generation latencies. Next assume semantics are variable with generational and subgenerational evolutions. Just what is a dynamic holographic data base anyway? Should we be reading Jeffrey Satinover's Quantum Brain? Is Google becoming a quantum brain? Why? Why not?

Now we run into someone from Betelgeuse... They do not use text... They attune quantum stage flux. Would they 'use' resistors? Resistings? (For an analogy of our intent here look up gyrator. It's a kind of self-adaptive $-saving 'negative' inductor used in power industry where power-wasting inductive loads predominate.)

Doug's Answer 11 - Sit under a redwood and read philosophy and meditate (after hiking 10k meters to get there; yes, we can omnistinguish redwoods via their leaves' undersides).

Doug's Answer 12 - Feynman said, in his view, it is -1 = ei; we made it more quantum like this:

What makes this quantum nonequation so beautiful is it demonstrates, via quantum flux EIMA recursion how negation is subjective and not classically objective. See answer 5.

Doug's Answer 13 - D.

Doug's Answer 14 - Nonformal, nonAristotelian quantum EIMA searching using natural qubits.

Doug's Answer 15 - C.

Doug's Answer 16 - Easy answer is a 3D equilateral tetrahedron; also its 'top' view 2D mapping. For right and larger triangles we can draw P outside reference triangle and show P equiperimetered to A, B, and C.

Try drawing that right triangle as a Möbius strip.
It should show an extraordinary
quantum complementary interrelationship.

Both graphics already do show quantum~included~middle complementary interrelationships, though, don't they.
Can you see quantum_illusionquanton(P_front,included~middle,P_back) in each graphic?

Are these graphics degenerate morphs of Tao? Hao? Hao is rightmost graphic a kind of rectangular Tao?

Hao are these two graphics like Schrödinger's notebook N1 hydrogen atom model?

Right triangle and larger (obtuse) cases are great examples of what we mean in Quantonics when we say, "2 + 2 = 5 tells you that your current context (say, inside a right triangle) offers no means of achieving requested solution. Pick a bigger context, perhaps use multiple contexts!" (Classically it is insoluble. Quantumly it is both insoluble in single context and soluble in larger, perhaps multiple contexts.) Use simultaneous equations to try this yourself. They will give you length spec's. which may not be achieved within said triangle. A quantum tell?

What potentia arise when we make A, B, C and P quantonic fuzzons?

How would you have to prepare fields and records in a
data base to facilitate subjective searching, Möbius style?

Another Doug question, "Which molecule is (what molecules are) a kind of ~symmetric double tetrahedron with P in quantum superposition, with P in two Buridan's Ass "which bale of hay?" loci simultaneously?" Find an answer here.

Doug - 15-16Sep2004.

Doug's Answer 17 - We didn't do this algorithm, but on inspection it appears requested f(n)=n does not exist. However in very large numbers with long strings of leading and embedded ones, it may be possible to "catch up."

Doug's Answer 18 - We do not hack.

Doug's Answer 19 - We do not understand, and appear, currently, incapable of answering this question. We are weak in linear algebras and some aspects of set-group theory.

Doug's Answer 20 - C.

Doug's Answer 21 - In early Millennium III: 1) search is value, 2) value is more subjective than objective (allow us to quote Philip R. Wallace from his Paradox Lost, "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Slightly paraphrased for concision.), 3) interpretive subjectivity, for us, implies quantum searching and processing. We advise a strategic move toward better quantum searching modalities.

Thought some of you might enjoy seeing our efforts. Google's ref. Test Code: WR-426F.


Thank you for reading.


August, 2004 News:

"We are perceivers. We are an awareness; we are not objects; we have no solidity. We are boundless. The world of objects and solidity is a way of making our passage on earth convenient. It is only a description that was created to help us. We, or rather our 'reason,' forget that the description is only a description and thus we entrap the totality of ourselves in a vicious circle from which we rarely emerge in our lifetime."

Don Juan in Carlos Casteneda's Tales of Power, Simon & Schuster, 1974, p.100.

We found this quote in Talbot's The Holographic Universe - Doug - 12Aug2004.

"War is the greatest of all crimes; and yet there is no aggressor who does not color his crime with the pretext of [dialectical, social] justice...It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill [socially] in large numbers to the sound of [social-pattern-of-value] trumpets...When the people undertake to [dialectical] reason, all is lost."

Durant says, regarding Voltaire's remarks above, "The great majority are always too busy to perceive the truth until change has made the truth an error."

Voltaire on, for example, GW Bush
The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant, p. 267., 1926-1933.
(Our brackets and italics.)


Beth and Doug are back in Oregon again. Soon we will k~now whether this will be home base.

Last year at this time in September, we told you about finding a pair of Jensen speakers. They are 15" speakers (14" cones). Well, just prior to leaving for Indiana last Spring, their foam surrounds literally disintegrated. Last Summer we ordered new foam surrounds and brought them back with us to attempt installation. New 15" speakers run anywhere from ~$100 on up apiece. Surrounds and adhesive plus instructions are about $27 plus shipping. Being fearless (yeah, right) Doug decided it wouldn't hurt to try it. Two days ago we did one speaker which appeared worst to us. All was well except for a few hints to offer our friends who might like to try this. Our adhesive bottle didn't like high altitudes, so when we opened, ready to attach foam to cone, adhesive oozed all over our hands. Ugh! Too much too fast and somewhat a mess.

Prior to all this, we patiently read and reread instructions and followed pictures. Pretty good.

List of supplies and preparation:

We used alcohol and goo-off to remove old speaker adhesive on first one. We think it is easier to just rub it off dry with one's fingers. As a result second speaker tear down and clean up went about 4x faster. Too, use a sturdy paring knife and an xacto. Our Jensens have laminated paper board quarter-circle bezels which hold surround's edge to speaker frame. We used our paring knife to carefully loosen and pry those bezels free. Each of those (four) has to be cleaned of old adhesive. Our xacto made it easy to loosen a paper layer of board and peel old stuff off. To get old adhesive off of speaker frame, just rub diligently with fingers while you hold speaker on its frame edge and leaning it away from cone and frame so junk won't fall back into speaker cone and frame.

To clean cone's edge of old adhesive and foam just use your xacto to gently 'cut' twixt junk and cone. It comes off fairly easily. You can shake some loose stuff out of speaker, and if small particles get on cone just dry blow it off (don't spit when you blow, just like blowing out candles on a birthday cake

Once all old adhesive and dust, etc. is cleaned from cone, bezels, and speaker frame, we can proceed with installation of new foam surround. Here is how we ended up doing it:

  1. read instructions
  2. reread instructions
  3. reread instructions
  4. remove a speaker (ours has eight philips head two centimeter wood screws); we gently use our Mita 18 volt hand drill to do this
  5. check wire polarity of speaker and mark red-orange side with a post-it or tape; remove wires
  6. clean any old surround that may be in box behind speaker
  7. make sure adhesive container (ours is not a squeeze tube, rather a plastic bottle) is ready to go: cut tip (puncture tube) if it isn't open, put storage cap back on, turn container upside down so this very viscous adhesive is ready immediately when you open it to apply it
  8. clean speaker and cone absent old surround are facing up on a clean flat surface (speaker designs vary a lot; we can't cover all that here; e.g., our cones have flat edges, some do not)
  9. have a surround ready and try it out pre-adhesive on cone; get a feel for surround's geometry vis-à-vis cone geometry; rotate for best alignment; lay aside nearby
  10. check adhesive to see if it is ready and near tip; hold bottle horizontal and remove cover
  11. touch tip to cone edge and apply a medium thin layer of adhesive around cone's entire edge; move quickly as possible, but be careful to keep adhesive uniform and on cone edge
  12. when cone edge is covered with adhesive do a quick check to see if there are any dry spots; touch them up with more adhesive
  13. move surround over cone and lower it carefully onto cone edge; use your clean dry fingers to adjust surround to fit cone edge as well as possible
  14. carefully use your fingers behind cone and above cone to press surround gently closer to cone; move all around cone's edge doing this; check alignment; adjust; wait for it to dry ~30 min's.
  15. surround's outer edge is now fairly well aligned with speaker frame's outer edge; what follows is tedious and more difficult and possibly frustrating, so quiet yourself and breath deeply and stay calm
  16. practice these steps prior to adding adhesive
    1. gently push with two or more fingers on speaker's cone
    2. you can move said cone within limits in and out and side to side
    3. your goal is to move said cone without hearing any 'scraping' of cone's magnet against frame's voice coil (you need to be in a quiet room or work place to do this)
    4. if you hear scraping, push on cone's wall N, S, E, and W while pushing cone cap in and out; this prepares you for how to adjust for no rubbing with adhesive on speaker frame's and surround's outer edge
    5. repeat until you know how to adjust for no rubbing; first time it is well to do this perhaps 10x; if you get frustrated, do something else and come back; iteration will teach you how to do this, and it doesn't cost anything until you apply adhesive; at that point you must know how to adjust for no rubbing sounds
  17. using your xacto or knife, lift surround's outer edge so you can add adhesive on speaker frame; put a medium-thin bead around frames inner edge twixt frame and surround; dodge mounting holes
  18. recalling where surround was for no rubbing press it into place on speaker's frame; surround wrinkles - don't worry about that, keep pressing it down; test for rubbing; adjust; repeat
  19. when you have eliminated rubbing sounds place bezels without adhesive on top of outer edge of surround; press down; check for rubbing; adjust; use small binder clips to hold bezels in place
  20. check for rubbing; adjust; you may (probably will) have to remove a bezel or two to adjust
  21. put bezels back; check for rubbing; adjust
  22. you need to get all this done in 5-10 minutes because adhesive becomes nonadjustable after that
  23. keep checking for any rubbing; you may notice that one edge appears closer to voice coil than any other; if you do, make that edge top of speaker when you remount it; gravity will help compensate; Doug had that experience with both speakers
  24. allow ~30 more minutes for outer edge surround adhesive to set
  25. remove bezels two at a time and ad adhesive to one and re install it, remove one more, etc.
  26. clip bezels in place; check for rub; shouldn't be any; if there is try moving cone with a tad of gentle force else remove bezel from ed opposite rub and try to pull surround toward edge of frame; you can also remove bezel on side with rub and push surround toward cone's center (gently now)
  27. allow ~30 more minutes for outer edge surround and bezel adhesive to set
  28. check for rub; if there is a slight rub determine which side is rubbing and mount that side up in speaker box
  29. allow all to cure for several hours
  30. try it

That process works for Doug. Our first speaker looks sloppy. Too much adhesive on cone edge and it shows, but appears to not seriously affect sound. We got adhesive all over our hands when we opened that bottle first time. We should have stopped there and cleaned up thoroughly, but we went ahead and that caused lots of grief. Just be patient and practice prior to committing to adhesive. After that you have a few minutes to adjust. You can always order another pair of surrounds and start over, or just buy new speakers instead of repairing old ones. Doug did it as a challenge to learn what it was like and see if he could save ~$200. It worked! And both woofers have much better and more solid bass now, without rubbing.

We bought our repair kit from We called them and they were incredibly helpful and loaded with muchas know-how. You can email them at If you want them to repair your surrounds they will do it, but it might cost more than new speakers, our case it would have cost more than new ones. So it was worth a try and paid off.

Look at it as fun, and you disable (omnisable) SOM's dichon(failure, success). You will enable Quantonics' quanton(success,only_apparent_failure).

We're just now listening to Paula Cole's CD This Fire. Our fav cut is number 9, feelin' love. Meg Ryan played it during her bath scene in City of Angels.

These Jenny's, with about 20 watts per channel input and strong bass music, cause our CD player (two feet away from both speakers and on a carpeted floor) to skip. We have to add foam vibration protection under our CD player! Doug will re-install Beth's (54") Magnepans and her Paradigm subwoofer (Marantz' SR4320 receiver-amp; CC4300 CD player) next week. Her system is in South (living, cooking, etc.) apartment and Doug's system is in North (lab) apartment.



Some thoughts on Hesse and his Magister Ludi:

Now, as we are back in Or-uh-gun, we have been taking brief re-scans of Magister Ludi, just to refresh our quantum memeos of it.

Hess makes an interesting observation about reason and freedom: classically, taken together, they are a paradox.

Does this make any sense after our recent six month Feuilleton Chautauqua on related issues?

Stop now and carefully ponder... What is it about reason that is classically antithetical freedom? How can that be? Similarly, what is it about freedom that is antithetical reason?

Pause, pause, pause, paws, paws,... (Shawna—"rub my paws, now!"—made us do that!

How do those of us in Quantonics, referring our own Feuilleton Chautauqua fathom Hesse's paradox?

We recall Pirsig's SPoVs. We notice two of their quantum flavors: quantum social and individual freedom. We notice their two classical dichotomies: objective social and individual freedom. We can make a list:

  1. IqQ-SP¤Vs - Quantonic quantum individual SP¤Vs place quantum individual freedom above quantum social freedom as higher and more evolved and evolving quantum value
  2. SqQ-SP¤Vs - Quantonic quantum social SP¤Vs place quantum social freedom below quantum individual freedom as lower and less evolved and evolving quantum value
  3. ScA-SPoVs - Aristotelian classical social SP¤Vs using classical dialectical 'reason' place social freedom and groups and institutions above individual freedom
  4. IcA-SPoVs - Aristotelian classical individual SP¤Vs, as taught, impose upon classical individuals a need to abide 'logical' classical social 'rules' and 'laws'

Where classicists treat individuals as classical objects subject to 'tragedy of commons sense' social indoctrination and hegemonies, quantumists treat societies as hetero-cultural, -ethical, -moral servants of extraordinary sensings individuals.

Classical social freedom, as Hesse suspected, is dialectically and thus objectively antithetical individual freedom. Why? Socialized concordant clones are unfree! Classical society enforces order via Demos will concordance which results in "good social behavior." That means, quintessentially, that we all have to thingk using Demos will's "one size fits all" 'common sense.' Hesse saw that classical individual freedom cannot 'exist' and flourish cowithin classical 'social freedom.'

Classically society (above individual) and individual are quantitative objective concepts, subject to analytic 'reason' and 'laws-rules.'

Quantumly s¤ciety (below individual) and individual are qualitative quantonic percepts, binding, while unbound to, any n¤nl¤cal social authority.

Quantum s¤ciety understands that any classical notion of society is incapable of making individuals free (large page).

See Durant on James' views of society and individual. Read paragraph just above on James' view of war.

Doug - 4-5Sep2004 (In Oregon, yeah!)

Note: Young fella just behind our digs here sees GWBush as a classical social hegemon and wants Bush out of office ASAP. Above is a great way to justify his concerns. Many of us aren't voting for Kerry, rather against Bush... Social hegemons are hated, nearly everywhere we go. In our view, they are doomed and face Millennium III extinction. It may take several decades, though. Notice how interesting Muslim terrorism is when perceived as classical individuals enforcing perceived socio-religious-group 'common sense.' Then view Bush in a similar light. What is a huge tell? Nearly total [classical] social [dialectical] disrespect for [classical] individuals! Yowza!...

End some thoughts on Hesse.


Begin Doug's opinions:

We want to sample part of an article from The Chronicle's 13Aug2004 issue, by Michael Baraway, titled, 'To Advance, Sociology Must Not Retreat.' Let's quote paragraphs and parts of paragraphs from Baraway's article:

"In a provocative opinion piece in The New York Times this past spring, Stanley Fish, just stepping down as a dean at the University of Illinois at Chicago, offered a, 'three-part piece of wisdom for those who work in higher education: Do your job; don't try to do someone else's job, as you are unlikely to be qualified; and don't let anyone else do your job.' Fish told us not to cross the boundary between academic work and partisan activity, not to engage in the business of forming character or fashioning citizens..."

Can you see the academic sociological cogs professors have become?
They can only do one job! A job, the 'union' job for which they have been one-time-trained and -educated to do!
They have become classically, objectively, state-ically, ideally, unionesquely, everywhere-excluded-middle-disassociated: dialectically 'socialized.'

Academics should read Tom Petzinger's The New Pioneers!

Doug - 12Aug2004.

"Academics are living in a fool's paradise if they think they can hold on to their ivory tower, fashioned for another era, another world. For too long too many of us have been hiding behind academic freedom and university autonomy—all in the name of [classical] truth. But the chickens are coming home to roost as the public is no longer interested in our truth, no longer prepared to subsidize our academic pursuits. So our budgets fall, and we increase fees, commodify learning, turn admissions into marketing ventures, contract out research to corporations, and search out donors....Fish would have us draw the curtains, close our eyes, and either accede to privatization or hope that the passion for the market will evaporate. It won't. We have to demonstrate our public worth." Our brackets, our bold.

Baraway supposedly sets a segue for justifying why 'Sociology Must Not Retreat.'

But if academia and its legacy and dead weight infrastructure are Sociology's Maginot Line, it is apparent how academia is a failure and failing and sociology (in its classical form) is failing and shall fail too.

Baraway's subtitle dyslexically complements what we bolded above, 'Sociologists believe in the public relevance of their discipline.' 'The public' has had it with state-ic classical social programs with their inertial and profligate waste. Individuals whose ensemble is what sociologists like Baraway refer 'the public,' and 'the people,' are k~now~ings they can and should take many public responsibilities like education back and make them individual responsibilities. Individuals see folly in many public endeavors. They see folly in 'one social pattern fits all,' and 'one public policy fits all.' Individuals intuit and k~now one size social-anything never fits all individuals.

Sociologists and most other academicians must demonstrate their quantum~individual worths. We cannot do that via classical social institutionalization. Social institutions are mostly about disciplinary matrices whose essence is law and rules: Geertz calls 'laws and rules' "scientism." Geertz says, "Scientism is mostly just bluff." We agree.

Classically-socialized, -disciplinary-matrixed, and -institutionalized academia at commencement of Earth's western cultural Millennium III costs too much and teaches too little. From our perspective, academia fathoms always increasing and renewed infrastructure and $ spent as 'quality.' Sociology and its belief in classical social patterns of value as above classical individual patterns of value are part of its and academia's imminent "commodification!" (Here, we interpret academic commoditization and "down-sizing" as a quantum~parable of Geertzian "disassembly" group-by-social-group.) Socially correct teachers and professors are dumbed-down, consensus, common sense, commonist sense, Demos will teachers and professors. Public opinion k~nows and understands that. They understand classical academic sociology's concomitant damage to students and an evolving, quantum society. Anyone who has worked with a bank teller, an airline clerk, a real estate agent, food service folk, teachers,..., anyone who has had a meal out lately...knows how dumbed down our society has become. Anyone who reads 'academic journals,' WSJ, oldspapers, Business Week, Financial Times, Time, Newsweek...knows how dumbed down our society has become.

We would say classical Sociology must retreat. Classical social notions based upon it must be discarded!

Of course we do not have to do that. Sociology is evolving itself out of business and that is about what Baraway is complaining. Too, academia.

Both are in a process of evolution away from classical notions toward more quantum memeos.

What's wrong with classical academia and sociology? Internet and other immense technological advances, as Baraway hints, have commoditized (commodified) both. People can get a better and more flexible and much less costly education on line. In some cases, like Quantonics, at its current level of evolution, student learning costs only time spent reading and studying our materials. There are no n-year programs, board, scheduled attendance, deadlines, tests, and that academic classical social crapola. Just an adventure in learning, "as you like it." Pirsigean Quality! Pirsigean Value! You can save your (at least) $100k.

Internet's version of academia is open source. Its accreditation is its users and their attachment of value to that work. Internet is a virtual university where any life-student can pursue topics at leisure, without some classically quantified 'grade.'

There is an enormous analogy twixt giant Micro$lopt and its losing battle with open source software, and academia and its just-commencing to be lost struggles with open source education.

Baraway goes on...

"Sociologists, however, at least in the United States, are not well positioned in the world of policy, because the ethos of our federal government is so hostile to what sociology stands for—social rather than individual explanations of behavior..."

This is just what we have been showing you and telling you. Sociologists and socialists believe that social patterns of value are above individual patterns of value. Theirs is not an ESS. This is omen and precursor of their evolutionary doom.

Baraway decries our current US physial and individual modalities,

"...Today, of course, it is the economists, with their celebration of competitive individualism, who are the favored tribe, while sociologists find their niche in reaching various publics—even if much of their work goes unrecognized."

Genuine value (i.e., value which is most highly evolved and evolving and quantum~comtemporary) does not emerge from social precursor patterns of value. It emerges from quantum~individual patterns of value. Individual patterns of value drive markets. Economists understand this! Quantum~c¤mpetition is nature's way! Quantum~c¤mpetition is evolution's way! Baraway just does n¤t grasp this essence of reality. Wethinks he should spend more time watching birds and fish and wild animals. (In Quantonics, quantum~c¤mpetition is n¤n dialectical. Quantum~c¤mpetition assumes individual, "respect mediates omniffering betterings." It assumes a quanton(better,worse) vis-à-vis a dichon(win, lose). It says people and their work products and capabilities can be and are uniquely extraordinary (n¤t socially and societally and tragically common) and quantum society values them as such. It assumes failure precurses success. It assumes both failure and success are always quantum tentatively persistent. We can win for awhile, then we lose for awhile, then... Quantum~c¤mpetition assumes a relentless flux of learning via trial abiding both tentative successes and tentative failures. It assumes without failure, there can be no success. It assumes quantum harmony is quanton(adaptive_improvement_learning_from_failure,quanton(success,failure)).)

Think about this: what has caused most damage to US businesses and education?

Our view is that education in US has been degraded massively via sociology's exalted exemplar: unions.

Every previously successful rust belt business and manufacturer has been put out of business by unions. Doug's home town lost over 20,000 jobs and about 16 industrial plants to union greed.

It's happening in academia now too. Doug's previous married life was to a teacher. Over a period of at least 30 years Doug watched as national, state, and local teachers' unions gradually chipped away at quality of education while demanding higher and higher salaries, and lower and lower quality of teaching. Unions want their people to do less for more. That's bad for individuals, bad for businesses, bad for schools, bad for us. Worst, teachers in massive droves are going to lose their jobs, just like those industrial workers in Doug's old home town.

That great union, USA, is doing similarly with our $ resources. As a nation, we are bankrupt! Our net worth is about $45Trillion and our debts, including unfunded pension and other liabilities, exceed $75Trillion.

USA, that socially ideal union of unions, takes our $, spends it, offers vaporware 'Social Security Trusts,' and goes blithely on as all is well. Ah, the nitwittedness of socialists and unions...

USA still has one great Value going for it. Respect for extraordinary capabilities of individuals to compete and grow better Value for all. Unions and socialists are against this. That makes us against them!

Clifford Geertz notices disassembly, global disassembly. Those who fight and resist that trend are guaranteeing their own demise, their own self-selection out of any futurings.

Government is next folks, and Hastert's big clue early in August, 2004 was an astounding political offer to eliminate that most wasteful social infrastructure of all: IRS. Nextings? Department of Noneducation and US Postal Nonservice.

Public despises under-performing over-costly academia as it despises a confiscatory and metastatic "federated republic" 'government,' a government of the government, by the government, for the government.

We anticipate a long sequence of recalled, impeached, and one term presidents until we achieve a novel quantum government.

Timings they are a-changings folks! It's a quantum tsunami folks! Wow! Awesome!

It may hurt for awhile, and we may have to accept n¤vel quantum~modalities of government...but quantum physial change can and probably will evolve toward better.

Doug's opinions.


Thank you for reading.


July, 2004 News:

US Senator Pat Roberts,

"A year ago, the Senate Committee on Intelligence made a commitment to the Congress and the American people that we should examine the quality and the quantity of intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

"Now, the debate over many aspects of the U.S. liberation of Iraq will likely continue for decades. But one fact is now clear: Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president, as well as the Congress and the public, that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

"Well, today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

From a
Fox News Transcript,
Friday, July 9, 2004.

A marvelous story. Israel has defeated Palestine. See Krautheimer's Washington Post article.

Found this at

Israel has shown us how to defeat terrorism! Heads up USA!

Remember: Garbage Woof Bush said "Arafat is no terrorist!" Liar!


Next month's news (August) will be sent to all of you from Oregon! Yippee! Doug's a happy SubDude!!! Yeah! (Gonna play some of their music when we get back, too.)

Pay attention to Martin Ryder's and others' works at his site at Colorado University, Denver. Great site and about as quantum as classicists can possibly be. Wonderful! If Doug didn't do anything, Martin's works point in novel omnirections for humanity which will ultimately "go quantum." Martin offers exegeses for many memes. One is semiotics. Juxtapose classical semiotics with Quantonics' quantum memeotics.


Beth does a lot of hospice work. We talk about it. Almost all hospice clients intuit quantum memes and memeotics! They often describe quantum nonactual phenomena. Most 'ethical' caregivers consider this stuff hogwash, but they are classicists so what can we expect.

Someone there recommended Vanessa Redgrave's 2000 A Rumor of Angels. Beth and Doug watched it together.

It reminds us of other films which hint, in non logical and non analytic ways, of quantum nonactuality. Of course this stuff interests Doug immensely, and there is much to talk about here from quantum metaphysics, philosophy and nonmechanical science perspectives.

Other similar films are City of Angels (Nicholas Cage, Meg Ryan (Doug's Juno! Most men have their Genius and most women have their Juno. Doug has his Juno!)), What Dreams May Come (Robin Williams, Annabella Sciorra, Cuba Gooding), Made in Heaven (Tim Hutton, Kelly McGillis), Sixth Sense (Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment), Pay It Forward (Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, Haley Joel Osment), Beyond Death (A&E), Quiet Earth (Bruno Lawrence, Alison Routledge, Peter Smith), and so on...

We recommend A Rumor of Angels, highly.

See Near Death Experiences for more film recommendations.

Enjoy this very quantum phenomena.


Are you keeping up with NASA's Saturn Cassini-Huygens spacecraft fun? Gorgeous stuff, eh? (Note that they did not call it "Cassini-Newton." Huygens intuited a quantum reality. Newton invented a classical reality. Bravo! NASA, ESA, and ISA. During next four years Cassini will do 74 orbits of Saturn, 44 approaches of Saturn's enigmatic moon Titan using Titan to renew Cassini's orbital energy, and several approaches of Saturn's other moons. Read about Oxygen Events online.)

Did you ask yourself some key Quantonics questions?

How can changing wave patterns 'appear' in classical circles? How can noncircular patterns appear in classical circles? Should we call them "rings?"

What happens if we treat each rings' fermions as fuzzons? Can you imagine what a given fuzzon's aggregation of partially emerqant animate EIMA quantum likelihood omnistributions might include? Would there be at least one QLO for a given fuzzon's interrelationships with Sun, all other solar system's planets, Saturn, its moons, all other rings' fuzzons, etc.?

Can classical computers handle this computational load?

Quantum computers?


We've been thinking...

If we took all that Quantonics has accomplished thus far in over six years of quantum emergence, and interpreted it from a perspective of culture, in light of dominant news since 911, in a simple one liner what would we say?

This: Any constitution for social government is obsolete before its formal draft is ready for publication.

Quantum politic(ing)s issi k~now~ings that. The New [Quantum] Pioneers are k~now~ings that. (The New Pioneers, by Tom Petzinger, author, WSJ staff writer.)

Any contrived SQ which has been around longer than a few Planck moments is old. This is what Pirsig was talking about in his letter to us saying, "The purpose of [quantum] design is to overthrow the ensemble!" Every quantum being in reality is quantum~designing he~r own local, individual ecology, and in that quantum process is incrementally overthrowing what 'existed' a few Planck moments prior. That aggregation is what Zohar calls Quantum Society. Need more enlightenment? No constitution can govern that societal quantum reality! Period!

EU is learning that now. Iraq will learn it. USA has yet to learn it. (However, it shall.)

Students of Quantonics should pay close attention to Pirsig's last sentence in that letter: "...becoming more and more in contact with the formless Dynamic Quality which will direct the shot without any intellectual interference whatsoever." Pirsig is talking here about learning How to Tap into Reserve Energy in his, "...becoming more and more in contact with DQ..." His approach is Zen meditation. Ours is inuring, animate, unstoppable, EIMA compenetration of both quantum actuality and quantum nonactuality. Some of our best students like to call it "straddling." Straddling is animate, EIMA both~all~while~and~many quantum coinsidence. We show it as quanton(nonactuality,actuality). Classicists see it otherwise. They see it as choosing dialectical sides. Either-one-or-the-other objective, sidis separation. They show it as dichon(does_not_exist, exists).


We have been having some fun with our Unix on our MAC. It is exceptionally powerful (though dialectically and radically mechanical ).

Thought we would share some of today's, July 22, 2004, work with you...

Do you use wwwstats to process your accesslogs?

We downloaded it and we PERL it under our Unix (see below). We are using version 2.

One problem is that we get wwwstats' "unresolved URLs" all lumped together in wwwstats' summary report. (That's about 20% of our total site activity.) We wondered if we could treat wwwstats like a black box and force it to treat Domains which are all numbers to appear as separate 'users' in our wwwstat summary. We found a way to do it, which you may find helpful.

All we did is create a filter which alters what wwwstats sees. We took our weekly access log text and changed all jkl.nmp.lmj.kjl domains to look like this: unresolved-jkl.jkl.nmp.lmj.kjl.nam.

When wwwstats processes that version of our access log it shows a total for 'nam' and lists each unique domain.nam as a separate user (or group of users). It's really cool!

Here is our .cshrc alias which accomplishes said filtering process:

alias markunresolvedurls "cd QALogs; m2u <\!:1 | sed 's/^\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*\)\ /unresolved_url-\1\1\2\3\4\.nam\ /' | less >log_resolved_urls.txt"

Here is another version which reverses its numeric url domain:

alias markunresolvedurls "cd QALogs; m2u <\!:1 | sed 's/^\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*.\)\([0-9]*\)\ /unresolved_url-\1\4\.\3\2\1\.nam\ /' | less >log_resolved_urls.txt"

Our specific command line invocation looks like this: markunresolvedurls 19Jul2004_Access_Log.txt. That filename is specific to one week's worth of Quantonics site hits.

That extra \. is to add a missing dot after last subdomain code which we didn't include when we used sed to create our dotted url domain. Latter command makes it very easy for us to just 'command copy' a url from our webstats (wwwstat result; wwwstats reverses domain subcodes) and use it to grep all access log occurrences of that url from our [Unix] cat of, say a year of, weekly access logs. We do a weekly cat >> [Unix cat append] of our latest week's access log text.

(For some black box reason, we had to repeat register 1. wwwstats destroys that domain name segment otherwise. That cd QALogs takes advantage of a set of aliases we found on MACOSXHints which allows one to save a mnemonic for what ever directory you are currently in and then reuse that mnemonic in place of typing the entire directory name. Be careful with that little tool though. Never type save without a mnemonic! Bad things happen! If you figure out how to fix this, let us know. As it is, it resets your SETs!!! We like it, though, and we just use it with care. m2u is an alias which fixes mac to unix carriage returns. It uses tr to convert mac CRs into unix LFs: alias m2u "tr \\015 \\012". sed is Unix' standard stream editor which is unbelievably powerful.)

That is what it looks like in our .cshrc file (go to that directory using cd ~) which we edit using vi. If you do not know how to use vi, be sure to study it a tad prior to attempting to edit with it.

Once we have done that, we can just call our webstats alias which looks like this in our .cshrc file:

alias webstats "cd /Qtx_Access_Logs/; m2u <\!:1 >access_log; cd /Qtx_Access_Logs/wwwstat_application/wwwstat-2.0; perl wwwstat </Qtx_Access_Logs/access_log >/Qtx_Access_Logs/\!:2"

Our specific command line invocation looks like this: webstats log_resolved_urls.txt unr040719.html, where latter file name is specific, and former is file generated by alias markunresolvedurls.

Of course none of this works until you have downloaded and setup wwwstats (it's easy, just follow instructions on their site).

Don't forget to quit Terminal and restart it each time you edit .cshrc!

Hope some of you find this helpful. We were going to publish this on MACOSXHints, but it seems a tad specific for there. If anyone thinks its useful there, feel free to offer it.



Thank you for reading.


June, 2004 News:

Mahayana quanton(nirvana,samsara)

(Madhyamaka Karika 25.19)






Er, um, quantum subjectivists, that is...

 "Why are subjectivists able to revolt and rebel against others, while objectivists who see themselves only as receivers of objective knowledge remain so acquiescent? The subjectivists' ability to imagine an 'infallible gut' provides guidance and standards independent of culture. With an 'inner gut' subjectivists can imagine themselves having some sort of a voice and a right to speak out — even against authorities.

"The subjectivists are advantaged in still another important way. They imagine the world and themselves in a state of constant flux. They can even imagine themselves initiating some of the changes. The silent and received objective knowers, however, see everything as classically static and stationary — including themselves. They understand the world as arbitrary, unamenable to analysis, and unalterable. If culture is unjust, that is how it is. To protest would only increase their own difficulties." (Our bold and italics.)

Pp. 169-170, Women's Ways of Knowing,
The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind.
By Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule,
1986, Basic Books, paper bound.
Minor paraphrasing shown in italics
to reach a wider Quantonics audience.

"Do you think it's an accident that protons and neutrons are triplet codons choosing up-down quarks and genetic codons are triplet codons choosing amino acids?" Doug.

"Do you think it is an accident that DNA emerscitecture is a double helix and quantum fermionic emerscitecture requires a Möbius Lissajous helix?" Doug.


+ (42mo2c2/h2)[(hv/moc2+e2/moc2r)2-1] = 0



Erwin Schrödinger's
Nonrelativistic Wave Equation
From his
Notebook N1

Erwin Schrödinger's
Double Möbius Tao Helix
Hydrogen Atom Sketch
From his
Notebook N1

See Walter Moore's Schrödinger, p. 193 and p. 198.
CUP USA digital reprint, paperback, 2001.

Use topology to morph Schrödinger's double Möbius into a Tao.

Can you see quantum hermaphroditic self-reference in Schrödinger's Double Möbius above?
Observe how much more omnifficult it is to see in Tao!

"Do you think it is an accident that quantum reality's very foundations rest ¤n mæmæ¤tihc primæ quantons: 1q, 2q, and 3q?" Doug.

Begin Doug's Opinion:

USA changed again, massively, first and second weeks of June, 2004.

Exemplar Subjectivist Dutch Reagan transitioned... "My captain, OH! my captain..."






Party...send him happily on his way...


We wish you well Dutch! Happy Chautauquas in that magic Nether land of pure subjectivity, that shining City of Angels!

And...C-SPAN so grand.

No Blathers, Bendings, and Brokenkaws. No talking heads objectively proselytizing herds what to thingk.

Perfect unDimbaughlb. Those inane three hours of blatant objectivity...ubiquitously C-SPAN-quenched...muted, every day.

Nearly a week of video without aural effluent: absent verbal vulgation of objectivist-unit-minds transuding their dialectical either lieberal or conservative metastatic dis eases.

Accept our profound thanks C-SPAN. You and Dutch changed our lives again. Changed our expectations. Changed our standards of media excellence!!!

We love you Dutch! You gave and give us pride. Your example made and continues to help us love this grand USA. You enhance and encourage our quantum~subjectivist endeavors! We needed a meta~injection of your courage and humor.

Now, Dutch, you "touch the face of God," and you can scoop unlimited "pinches of quantum faith."

Quantum grace...


But then, there is W. Ugh! What a comparison. Same party: except with sleeve-borne objective Christianity. Commercial Christ. Political Christ. 'Presidential' religious marketeering. By way of comparison Monica doesn't seem so bad now... At least Monica was free. Bush's brand of religion is a detention center of dialectical ethics, intellect, and morality. Christ in a box. Dialectical Christ.

Bush vis-à-vis Reagan is a di-fferent and di-alectical person: except Bush is an imperialist vengeance-filled violent aggressor absent any subjective sense of svelte.

W: Di-fferent objective values: morality, ethics, aesthetics, psychology, sociology and anthropology are all predicate-logically and cliché-classico-scientifically passé 'rational.' Troglodytic logic.

W: Big ego, no getgo. Imperial religionist. Decrepit deficiteer.

And Willard. We nearly gagged at Clinton's presence, his putrescent comments, and egoistic hubris. (Willard slept through Reagan ceremonies at DC's National Cathedral!)

W & Willard. All cuddly in their picture-hanging Tom-Sawyer-Huckleberry-Finnesque-white-washed-casa parried-excellence. Willard calls [Pp]olitics "noble." W calls Willard "warm." Willard says we should dialectically care about what's "right and wrong" and dialectically not care about what's "good and bad." (to both Ws, political dialectic is above political morality (i.e., politics as 'amoral'), and presidents as representatives of 'society' are social institutions and thus above individuals) That's what we have now. Two Ws. One slick. One "Christ on his sleeve preaching" fundamental (i.e., objective, dialectical) religion. Both mixers: porn and polity and religion and polity. Slime and insanity. Oryx and Crake. Two mixers in place of Dutch, who, in our view, would have none of their bilge. (Nor would he spend his time doing what we're doing just now, but we are so outraged we shall not desist!)

W's incredibly worried about his political future else he wouldn't be sucking-up... Was his white-wash of Willard a way to get lieberal votes? Think about that. Some lieberals do not like Kerry, and Kerry is a threat to Willard's plans for Hillarious. Too, Nader is crimping Kerry, but few may realize how Nader will crimp Bush similarly. Shades of 1992, when Perot Naderesquely ushered Clinton into eight years of shame. (Again, in our view, Reagan's major presidential error of choice was his selection of GH Bush as his running mate. But reality is quantum uncertain, isn't it. If so, where is that quantum political party?)

Wonder of wonders, emergent Chelsea is precious...what an absolutely gorgeous quantum~jewel... An avatar of perhaps better, just ahead.


But wait...

Should we expect more than one truly great president per century? Should we expect great presidents?

If we are all normal, identical, same, ordinary, common, equal, why should we expect greatness?

Again, a quantum ensemble vote would give us a better sense of Reagan's greatness. Of course that happened with his rout of Mondale, didn't it?

Our view is that Reagan is about as good as any US president can be. However, to us, he was and is extraordinary!

People who hated him for Iran Contra are same, common, ordinary, normal folk who disabled CIA and radically attenuated our humint advantage which we need for dealing with terrorism today. Does their common view of Reagan matter? Can common assess extraordinary well? Those common folk, many of them, think Clinton is extraordinary. They hate Reagan! Why? They love socialism and despise individualism; that's at least part of an answer. They believe society provides security for public citizens. We believe society can, in a limited fashion, do that on a national scale, but is inept at doing that on an individual scale. We also believe it is self evident now that classical Demos will society is inept in dealing with virtual networked terrorism.

And you probably heard all those common-ordinary-normal sour grapes. Mostly those little bombs came from died-in-wool fascist socialists, at least ones we heard call C-SPAN. When we say "fascist socialists," our semantic is one describing people who are religiously fundamental and worship their notion of a perfect state-cathedral controlling perfectly hegemonized, hive-droned, state-church-shepherded, somnambulant zombies. Nazis are nearly ideal examples of our semantic (Check 'em out in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.). W, in our view, harbors some fascism. Why? He claims institutions are above people! Ugh! Willard and Hillarious are similar.

Reagan fought against notions of state over people. He understood evils of that despicable social inversion of human values. That's a huge reason why we admire and respect Reagan so very much.

Similarly, that is why we have lost any respect we had for W. Compared to Dutch, W doesn't even register on any 'great presidents' radar screen. W is just noise which we need only filter out until he and his band of social fascists fade...


Have you noticed? Lieberals know so much about society. Do they? Is a society an ecology? What are hallmarks of a healthy ecology?

Bottom feeders. Top feeders. Middle feeders. Females, Ferms, Herms, Merms, & Males.

But what do lieberals want. One! Monism! Equality! Clonicity! Level! Common! Normal! Lowest common denominator!

Lieberals want an unhealthy ecology!

Lieberal objective socialism shall fail!


It is sick!

Look at nature. Compare. Lieberal society is sick! Ideal tragedy of common sense SOCIAL society is an illness: unnatural.

What is healthy society?

Our heuristic is that healthy society is competitive and always changing and emerging heterogeneous hierarchical societies of genuinely "free enterprise," genuinely "free individual [not societal] enterprise." Note how our requirements demand some societal restraint and some societal responsibility. A great example is emergence of homogeneous 'free enterprise' which attempts to monopolize. That is anti-competitive and -heterogeneous, while trending toward status quo as a monopoly's way to go. But those remarks apply to societies too, don't they? We say yes! (Quantum-) Individuals must take responsibility in both cases to limit and disassemble both societal and enterprise classical homogeneities. We say 'classical' here since wæ aræ comfihdænt that s¤mæ quantum h¤m¤gæneihties (lihkæ quantum c¤herænce) aræ extræmæly bænefihcial t¤ b¤th ihndihvihduals amd s¤cieties.

A vote for W. Bush is a vote for an Unhealthy America.

End Doug's Opinion.

Quantonics work -

Our fuzzon work takes us back into QCDland. Yes, a strange and charming land...

We are developing quantology which permits us to use fuzzons to emerscitect quarks and thence nucleons.

Unsure how many of you are into QED and QCD. They are both very difficult and complex. Yet, strangely, they are very simple. QED deals with photon-electron ontologies. QCD vivifies nucleon and subnucleon ontologies.

Our first reaction to both QED and QCD is that they are superb inventions of human genius. Granted that, our 'genius' is yet classical. Current classical versions of QED and QCD are, in Quantonics' perspective, flatlands. They are based upon naïve realism, classical logic, 'forces,' and 'particles.' From our perspective current versions of QED and QCD are yet trapped in SOM's box. Their practitioners use invalid objective languages to describe them. We intend to remediate their QxD language and leap out of SOM's box.

We are just learning both, and our level of ignorance is huge...we have a long way to go. However, we can now draw Feynman diagrams for protonneutron transmutations and write Quantonic script duals for them. We also can show nonactual~to~actual quark ontology based upon decreasing energy. (View "decreasing energy" as a classical metaphor of quantum emergence from nonactuality's almost boundless energy to actuality's relatively bounded energy.) Latter is close kin of our MoQ I and MoQ II Reality Loops. Let's take some time here to show you a QCD version of a Feynman diagram of a neutron~to~proton transmutation as a Quantonic script. Then let's show an energy gradient ontology for QCD's six quarks.

QCD offers six quarks. They are very complex memes. Oversimply, quarks have energy, electric charge, and color charge. QCD's six quarks are called flavors. 'Particle physicists' study collisions of heavy (energetic) 'particles' and tabularize flavor vis-à-vis energy ('mass') and their interrelated proportions.

N¤t so Humorous aside:

In Quantonics we find huge "boys and their testosteronic 'scientific' toys" humor in classical notions twixt Mae-wan Ho's biological Cuisinart violence and 'particle physicists'' 'particle' collision violence. Women's Ways of Knowing (very quantum~subjective), and watch some videos from your local public library: The Grand, Lillie, etc. Rent a copy of Rabbit Proof Fence.

End aside.

Three of six quarks have +2/3e fractional electric charge: U, C, and T. Three have -1/3e fractional electric charge: D, S, and B. Their respective names are Up, Charm, Top, and Down, Strange, Bottom. Those arbitrary quark 'names' are called "flavors." (We say "arbitrary" since, in some ways, up should be down and top should be bottom. All of material reality results from animate, EIMA, quantum process interrelationships among those six quarks.

Students of Quantonics know our version of quantum reality is quanton(nonactuality,actuality). Our quanton's comma~no~space script represents an everywhere~included~middle~association of quantons actual and nonactual. Quantons which ontologically attract that quantum included-middle we call tentative (isots) and quantons which ontologically attract actuality we call preferential (isops). Up and Down quarks are preferential and mutually transmutative. Charm, Top, Strange, and Bottom quarks are tentative. In our reality loop above, you may imagine TCBS in that Planck h/2 loop. UD actuals emerge when TCBS tentatives become preferentials. We think this is H5W Higgs bosons play quantum mediative roles of material creation.

In QCD our quantonics scripted comma~no~space is analogous bosons which mediate quark transmutations including gluons, W, and Z. You will see us use subscripted plus and minus symbols on our comma-no-space to illustrate what types of bosons mediate any quark transmutation process.

(Higgs boson is a crucial, currently unresolved, issue here. New very high energy accelerator-colliders are looking for Higgs' boson. It is important, ontologically, since it appears to be that boson which affects creation of quantum actuality using quantum isoflux from quantum nonactuality. Many of you are aware that Doug, hitherto, has been unable to offer exoteric exegetics for this subontology of Quantonics quantum~novel~becoming ontology. Now, it appears as though we are going to be capable of Quantonically doing just that, and do it better than classicists currently do.)

Given that Quantonic avatar, we have bases for an ontological description of quark evolutionary emergence and transmutation.

Every nucleon composes three preferential fuzzon~emerqant quarks which in Quantonics we choose to call a codon. A neutron's nuclear quark codon is UDD (one up quark, two down quarks). A proton's nuclear quark codon is UDU (one down quark, two up quarks). Their electrical charges, respectively are: +2/3e, -1/3e, -1/3e, and +2/3e, -1/3e, +2/3e. As you can see a neutron has "neutral electrical charge." A proton has a net positive charge of one antielectron. Very roughly speaking, protons are missing an electron's worth of energy.

A neutron can transmute into a proton. For that to happen UDD must transmute into UDU. Notice how first two letters of our codons are quantum~analogous (i.e., similar, but not classically, naïvely 'identical'). It is interesting to think now of a transmutation of UDD to UDU as a transmutation of neutron codon's last D quark to proton codon's last U quark. A neutron becoming a proton: quantum emergence! We can show both UDD to UDU and D to U transmutations using Quantonics scripts, and we leave it to students to find their analogous Feynman Diagrams on WWW. (Try searching for <QED QCD quark interactions>.)

U to D:

quark+uquanton(quark-d,-quanton(electron,anti_electron_neutrino)), and


protonquanton(neutron,-quanton(electron,anti_electron_neutrino)), (proton emergence from a neutron), then

protonquanton(quarku,quanton(quarkd,quarku)). (a stable, latched proton; nuclear fusion can transmute it into a neutron)

Here you may choose to fathom vast powers of our Quantonics scripting genre. Too, it becomes clear that quarks are quantons and may be talked about in Quantonics' Remediated English Language (QELR) and may be described using Quantonics' scripts. Feynman gave us graphics. Quantonics gives us scripts. Wow!

Quantonics is adding more philosophical, scientific, lingual, graphical, memeotic, and hermeneutic powers to interpret and describe quantum reality. We call their QLO Value protocursors "fuzzons."


Quantonics' Fuzzons Emerscitecting Quarks
Quarks Emerscitecting a Neutron and a Proton

Three Fuzzons
Emerse a Quark

It's a Möbius Fermion!

Three Quarks
Emerse a Neutron

UDD Möbius Fermion

Three Quarks
Emerse a Proton

UDU Möbius Fermion

Emergence of a
Rendered Möbius Fermion
with Quantum Spin 1/2

Is scaling fermionic self~similarity and quantum~sophist recursion apparent to you now?

Students of Quantonics are well aware now that our rendition of a Möbius fermion, shown extreme right above, is what makes quantum reality an apparently material, physical reality. See also our Möbius 3~Prime Fermion.

As you may intuit there is much to come in Quantonics!

Cool stuff, eh?

Thank you for reading.


May, 2004 News:


"Allah says, when you encounter those who deny Islam, strike [their] necks."

from the Koran, sura 47, verse 4

We found this in a letter to editor of Financial Times, 19May2004.


"Medicare trustees report...Medicare will go bankrupt...2014...the entire US government is going bankrupt...unfunded Medicare and Social Security...unfunded by $72 trillion...US net worth is only $45 widens by $2 trillion per year (GNP is only about $11 trillion per year)...we can close gap...but need present value accounting to do so...(conventional status quo politics ignores this approach, to citizens detriment)...GW Bush resists this logic...because federal government is not forced to plan for the long term...disastrous choices...massive tax increases...massive cuts in Medicare and Social Security...Joe Lieberman has introduced legislation that requires federal account for long term..." (Our parentheses.)

From an editorial page commentary by Joe Lieberman, Senator, Connecticut
Financial Times, 25May2004.

We admire Lieberman immensely, and
wish he could garner more support,
especially as a quantum politician.

GW Bushagain has to go, folks!
Doug's opinion.

We've been back in Indy nearly two months. Beth is happy as can be. She grew up here. This is home for her. Doug can handle it, but his heart is attracted to our great Pacific Northwest.

Our habits take us back to those activities which give us much pleasure. We are reading philosophy, metaphysics, anthropology, science, and biology texts and journals. Beth is reading Richard Powers' new, 2003, text The Time of Our Singing. Doug gets a crack at it next. From what Beth shares, it sounds as though Doug could take issues of race and superpose issues of sexuality throughout this most recent Powers work. It will be fun to see if that intuition holds. It is so interesting how our nation settled, at least legally, issues of dialectical race di-scrimination. Yet we are still struggling with issues of dialectical sexuality di-scrimination. USA, simply, is afraid of change; afraid of giving up fundamentalist evils of classical dialectic. Like a bully, we like to di-scriminatingly push everyone else ("the infidels," "the queers," "the terrorists," etc.) around, but underneath we sense our own frailties, insecurities (especially US Nazis and white supremacist-fascist Christians), and inadequacies. It's a social vis-à-vis individual process. It will resolve during Millennium III, at least that is our heuristic.

Want to stay away from political issues, but...

Have any of you wondered why there were n¤ full time journalists attending and watching prisoner and keeper behaviors in Iraq's prisons?

Recall all those journalists riding into Baghdad during BuShock and FlAwe? Why didn't we invite journalists to "Quiet and Dull" live in a prison environment and report what was happening? Would it have been Dull? Would that have been better? Aren't those imprisoned individuals' and even their captors' stories worth telling and hearing? Aren't their views just as important as USA's political propaganda? Do typical Iraqis even know what democracy is? Do they think it is a good system? Why? Why n¤t? Do they like USA people? Hate us? Why? Why n¤t? Wouldn't their questions and answers be as interesting as Ollie North's Foxy history-manufacturing propaganda? How would prisoners have been treated with journalists right there watching and reporting? How else are we individuals to know without unbiased individual journalists there to show us?

Societies cann¤t know a one size fits all truth and history about any reality. Best we can do is see it happening, now, as it issi happenings. We can ride reality's edge of now but we cann¤t induce its past and future.

Good Quantonic meme? Bad classical dialectical idea? Big Brother? Communism? Should every platoon have an independent journalist reporting? Or should Earth's people be able to trust USA's military complex? Should any of us trust USA's government? Its leaders? Can we afford that luxury of trust? USA's political record, as we see it, says "N¤!"

If only Tony Blair or Joe Lieberman were our president...

Instead we have a fundamentalist-"god-fearing" vendetta specialist getting dialectically-even for his old man's dialectical maltuitions.

One of our great personal political disappointments was Reagan's selection of GHBush as his VP. We sensed then that naught but ill would come of Reagan's 'political' choice. That one decision had much to do with where USA is today. It set initial conditions which have evolved to select USA's hate-filled dialectical war with Iraq.

Have you noticed how some Christians claim to adhere their God's love, yet they are among the biggest haters (in our view, borne of Thomist dialectic) on Earth?

Example: Nazis are (claim to be) Christians, yet they self-avow hatred of all non-Arians and all non-Arian-Christians. Hitler was an Arian Christian! Doug speaks of personal experience here, and does not indict all Christians. (Arianism claims that Christ was human only, not divine; but Jews are non-Arian and Christ is a Jew. ???)

A former significant other hated Jews. That individual claims to be a Christian. That individual claims Christianity is about love and forgiveness and tolerance. Why does that individual hate Jews? They killed that individual's savior, Jesus Christ, a Jew.

But now we know, social dialectic killed Jesus, n¤t Jews.

That exemplifies what classical thing-king method, CTM-dialectic, does: "generates genetic defects in reason itself." (See our bases of judgment below, in our March News. Pay attention to yellow background text.)

What specific defect in this case? Worshiping a Jew while hating Jews. What if Jesus were a Jewish Moor? Should we hate him or love him? What is your dialectical 'decision?' Hasn't classically defective dialectical 'reason' turned some Christians into haters?

That is what dialectic does. It manufactures boundless classical paradice. Boundless opportunities for hate and to hate.

If we really love God and believe in God should we dialectically hate anyone? How can any God-fearing human, any God fearing society, who believes their God is about love, and their God is antithetical hate, participate in a War on Iraq? Shouldn't we respect one another and all creation and do everything in our power to achieve harmonious peace? Shouldn't we see that those who practice hate and war are really dialectically against God? Isn't that what we claim to believe about Neandertaliban? That they are only a few who claim to be for (their) God but are actually against (our) God, and thus by dialectical reason simultaneously against (their) God?

There's that damnable dialectic again:

dichon(our_God, their_God) = hate_&_war = "bomb_bomb_bomb_-_bomb_bomb_Iraq."

Echos from 1989: Dimbaughlbian laughter of dialectical SOMwits...

How are Neandertaliban omnifferent Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld,..., Dimbaughlb?
Who decides?
Can we use dialectical reason to judge?

CRwits say, "Who cares?"
(thus "disabling judgment," Geertz)

In Symbol font:

"mhnin aeide thea Peladew Achilos..."
(if your browser does not have Symbol font this line will appear similar English (US default) font)

In English (US default) font:

"mênin aeide thea Pêlêïadeô Achilêos..."

In English language:

"Sing, oh, Muse of the Wrath of Achilles..."

Dialectical Wrath that is...

Echos from ~2750 years ago, first line of Homer's Iliad: Hatred borne of dialectical SOMwits...

SOMwits say, "There is only one, dialectical, absolute truth! Our truth!"
(thus "removing judgment from history," Geertz)

When are we going to dump dialectic?

Actually, a quantum tsunami has already commenced to do that, and said tsunami is cusping nowings!

Doug - 27May2004.


Who is USA's Tony Blair? Is Kerry similar Tony Blair? Lieberman? Who? Are there any n¤n-dialectical, n¤n-common-sensical candidates? Note that Kerry's very quantum comtextual 'waffling' issi n¤n-dialectical! Due his wafflings' quantumness, SOMwits just cannot noodle it: it isn't "dialectically logical!" Dialectic demands one classical (their) context fits all reasoning: OGT in OGC! Is Kerry a quantum annunciator of changes offing? We believe so, indeed!

One can learn a lot watching C-Span. So we do, periodically. Recently, we are watching California courts deal with San Fran's. unilateral (dialectically 'illegal') action to marry gays. Fundamentalist reactions to gay marriage are raw hate-filled dialectic! Again, we see social vis-à-vis individual; society declaring itself above individuals. Dialectic courts see dichon(courts_institutions, individuals). They see social institutions dialectically above and ruling individuals. Worse, they use dialectical 'law' to maintain that classical legacy inversion. But our quantum tsunami will crush those dialectical legal systems during Millennium III, and it will do so in favor of individuals and individuals intuiting intrinsic quantum~uncertainty~of~social~opinion.

On Social Agreement -

Society, to some, is positive, indeed from a classical conspective, logically positive. What does that mean? It means absolute dialectical agreement. Groups agree. How can groups agree? They call it "common sense." To any group "common sense" is agreement. Anyone who does n¤t agree with a group's common sense lacks "common sense." Those people are called "negative" and much worse. Why? They do n¤t agree.

Take a look at history though... What are odds that common sense is right? Right! Almost nil. Was Earth flat? Is Earth the center of the universe? Does an apple have state or process? Is reality stoppable? What is minus-apple? Is negation dialectical? Is nature dialectical? Is nature certain? Can we clockwork predict future. Is there only one future? What is time? What is space? What is mass? What is gravity? Why do scientific paradigms shift? Is science dialectical? Do planets orbit in perfect circles? Is pi 3? Is pi 3.1415926...? Is pi constant? Why is pi constant? Why is pi n¤t constant? Do circles occur naturally in reality? Where? Is life-death cyclic ¤hr dialectically and radically final? Were humans evolved ¤hr creatively instantiated? Is Earth and our Solar system 6000 years old ¤hr roughly five billion years old? Are humans machines? Is truth absolute? Is reality homogeneous? Is reality paradoxical? Do di-lemma exist? Is reality determinate? Is reality physical? Is reality substantial? Is reality objective? Is reality quantitative?

Almost all of those queries' classical answers express classical dialectical "common sense," but all of them (and countless others) are either wrong ¤hr deeply worrying as to their validity at Millennium III's commencement. Really, from a quantum per(pro)spective, classical dialectical common sense is Earth's greatest "tragedy of commons."

If you can stand some scientific history, read Max Jammer's [history of] 'Quantum Logic,' Chapter 8, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. It's theoretical, but you can skip any symbols and just read his text. Also read available recent texts on Kurt Gödel (esp. Casti's, then Nagel's, et al.), and read Simon Singh's Fermat's Enigma, and Davis' and Hersh's The Mathematical Experience. Too, some of Peirce's work (available on line, see link ) re: notions of partial order (a quantum logic precursor) and abductive logic.

Classical "common sense" is and begs some other bogus classical notions, including: assumption (classical dialectical), presumption (classical dialectical), supposition (L. putare, putation, classical dialectical dis-putation), postulation ("common sense" accepted as common classical dialectical verity in order to establish-manufacture a basis for common classical dialectical reason), normalcy (state as classical dialectical immutability), validity (classical dialectical), verity (classical dialectical), etc.

"Why that rant, Doug?"

In Quantonics, at Millennium III's commencement, we believe that classical societal, positive, dialectical "common sense" is doing incredible harm to Earth's people and her massively heterogeneous societies and cultures. USA's imperial "democratic" militancy and he-r fundamental religious missions have destroyed countless Earth cultures, in name of d(D)emocratic-r(R)epublican and religious dialectical "common sense."


Classical dialectical "common sense" says "If we all identically agree (dialectical affirmation, "Yes!"), we know we're (dialectically, affirmatively) right, socially positively, absolutely right." Actually, it's only concrete, specific, socially viscous (necessarily local) opinion (which dialectically vies for global sufficiency) and that is all... Ordinary, normal, common and thus bogus BS!!! "Conman (our, the) sense." "Rule of conman law." "BuShock and FlAwe either-or conman sense."

It may shock you, but reality offers us n¤ simple static, positive, immutable, absolute classically-complete and classically-consistent dialectical "common sense." Classical common sense assumes reality holds still and may be state-ically, independently analyzed in ideal zero momentum reference frames. But reality is simply dynamic! Reality is absolute flux. Reality is unstoppable! N¤ ideal classical reference frames exist in reality. 'Zero momentum' does n¤t exist in reality. N¤ immutable scalar magnitudinal constants exist in reality.

Classical dialectical "common sense" is bogus Bobbi Streisand, folks!

Do you know anyone who identically agrees, dialectically, with anyone else? Do you know anyone who identically agrees with themselves from day-to-day, month-to-month? Humans aræ anihmatæ, EIMA, ænsehmble quantum~st¤chastihc flux pr¤cæsses, n¤t classical dialectical "common sense" objects-machines!

Reality demands of us our best and our "flux is crux" ensemble processes getting better. We call it "extraordinary sense." Emergent, n¤vel, extraordinary even parthenogenetic change is real essence and simplicity, n¤t social dialectical "common sense" state-icity.

Quantum rhet¤rihcal, s¤rs¤, umc¤mm¤n sænse sahys thæræ issi n¤ dialectical "common sense." Bravo!

Classical tragedy of "commons sense" asks us to believe that: one (the) mathematics fits all, one religion (ours) fits all, one society (ours) fits all, one classical scientific (the) method fits all, one dialectical (the) method of reasoning fits all, and so on... It's bogus folks! It's a "common sense" deign to feign. A shameful and culpable ESQ deign to feign.

We, individuals, cannot trust societies, unions, and groups. Why? Their "common sense" mission is to retain hegemony over individuals, to dialectically control individuals. You can trust that and take that to your quantum bank!

Doug's opinions... 26May2004.

Our new Mac equipment is doing great. (Budgeting more for 2005.) A 65W line adapter failed, but they are so small and handle so much power, we are n¤t surprised. Its failure mode was n¤t catastrophic, too. We bought several new ones for backups. While we were doing that, we bought LaCie's 160G firewire drive. It has two connectors, so if we make sure they aren't connected simultaneously, our legacy PCs and our Macs can share that drive. We use MacDrive5 to see LaCie from PCs. Works great! Also their backup software is free at their site and works with most other drives, too. Found this recommendation by RobG. on Mac OS X Hints. Bunch of good people there.

Working with Mac, for us, is simply a dream compared to the WinTel nightmare (We had seemingly endless problems with WinTel hardware, MS and vendor software, MS' silly licensing, patches, viruses, etc. One almost has a sense that MS' bugs are intentional...Hmmm...they wouldn't stoop that low, but then Bill...oh well...its all 'bout MS' FUD...they call it "marketing strategy"). We used WinTel from about 1986 through now, but we won't be buying anymore except in an emergency. Only thing we use WinTel for now is backups and FTP site uploads to our ISP. Our ISP does n¤t like Mac's OSXigen at all. Probably something to do with bandwidth and-or how we have preferences set. OSXigen is bloody fast compared to WSFTPro. We doubt our ISP likes that extra burden, since they carefully manage up and down links' utilization. Of course loading our site to ISP isn't as important as your being able to download it quickly...

Prior 1986 we used Apple gear basic 2e+ through Mac IIfx. Prior that we used DEC PDP11s and VAXs. We did a lot of assembler (real time) work in those days on DEC, 808x, HP 11xx and 21xx, RCA 1806, and so on... Just to show you how much things have changed...when Doug started doing real time embedded development, one bit of core memory cost more than a nickel. So this MAC's 1gbyte ram would have cost about $50 million. And that 1806 uP had a clock rate of 1MHz! Our IIfx, if we recall correctly, had a 30MHz Motorola uP. Doug's 1st company started with DEC's smallest PDP-11 and later grew into their VAX (mainly due compatibility with Magnavox Military Systems work we did then). That PDP-11 system with a printer and a VT-100 terminal cost just under $20k! It had 64kbytes ram half of which was I/O address space. Its disk system was a dual 8" floppy, each would only hold about 256-512k bytes. Later we added a 5Mbyte hard drive for $6k! It was half size of a refrigerator and disk pack was about 20" across and about 2-3 inches thick!

Before that we used HP's paper tape operating system and carried all our code around in big spools of punched paper tape.

"Doug! Why all this nostalgia?"

Beth and I went to Ft. Wayne last week to have dinner with Larry and Sherry (try Chops restaurant, 24 West, about 3/4 mile East off I-69). Larry showed up with a 2 inch thick ATS-F VHRR Operation Manual which he and I wrote in mid '70s. VHRR was a PDP-11 based system. Doug wrote two software systems for NASA's ATS-F VHRR (Applied Technology Satellite, Version F, Very High Resolution Radiometer): ground station software and real time display software from Rosman, NC to Goddard Space Flight Center ATS-F Operations center (A, custom for NASA, 2400 baud single port modem cost $250k then! It was as big as a microwave oven!). Larry Howell did all VHRR EE design, integrate and test. It had to work first time, day satellite was launched, folks! It did! We captured high resolution 2400 line infrared and visible satellite images of Earth which were transmitted from geosynchronous orbit (22,300 miles) to Earth, save 'em on magtape and transmit 'em to Goddard. Muchas technical detail and all crammed into 28k of PDP-11 memory. All written in DEC assembler. A very nice assembler. DEC's OS (RT-11) had lots of bugs then so Doug ended up fixing a lot of DEC code too. Doug learned how to write real-time OSes in that process. Lots of other stuff too. Larry and Doug had an impossible schedule, but we made it happen. Yep, n¤ apologies, just plain nostalgia. Chris Stephanides was our NASA tech officer.

Larry, thank you for remembering Doug and giving him that fun jaunt down memory lane... And thanks for being the best boss and teammate a guy ever had. Shoulda stayed, but then we wouldn't be running Quantonics, so...

We've come a long way baby...

Been looking at MAC's dualie G5 tower with twin 2GHz cpus. Think we will wait one more generation on that one, but we can use its power now. We automatically manage two versions of our Quantonics web site. A huge advantage of WinTel is their long file names. Our current MAC has only 31 character file names excluding extension. Nearly all of our legacy site file names are longer than that. We have Unix code which we wrote that maps all those names, and their links and anchors, back and forth. We maintain our site now on MAC equipment, but we also support WinTel and legacy ISP long file names. Each time we change an HTML file or create a new one, we have to be able to offer both versions. Too, our HTML has multiple internal con(m)texts. Text which is in a quantum comtext has to receive remediation according Quantonics standard QELR. That is all automated too. A single command in Unix now makes that happen either on individual files or site wide. Big HTML files with lots of quantum comtexts take up to a minute, but on a dualie G5 we are guessing just a couple of seconds. So we have, in a sense, already started to outgrow our current MAC equipment. Don't expect dualie laptops anytime soon, but who knows... IBM is working on dual core microprocessors! Perhaps G6 will be dualie-dualies. (Used to know a guy named Dooley.)

Each week we do our site access logs in Unix on our MAC titanium. We do several preprocessing tasks which help us better evaluate visitor activity. We wrote a gawk command which reverses domain names. But before that we have to see if any URLs are without dots. Those have to be edited to give them at least one dot (e.g., a bare quantonics to Sorting on regular URLs and reversed URLs offer omniffering outcomes. Doug also wrote several Perl programs. One which attends our URL manipulations takes a sorted URL list. Say you get 10 hits on and you get 178 hits on Our little Perl program takes our reversed (previously sorted) domain list and counts repeated URLs and puts out a separate column with recurrence-count in it e.g.,<tab>10 and<tab>178. Now just paste those two columns in your spread sheet next to your domain column. We can do most of that with a single Unix alias. After you've done that, you can sort counts descending with date and time ascending. Neat! We also convert all highly repetitive strings to assigned acronyms to save space. And, we put ZZs in front of all search engine hits and GIF hits. Before we sort as described above, we sort all GIFs and SEs to bottom. On our site that is about 2/3s of all hits! Now we can do that first sort on only 1/3 of an access log and save much time looking at user activity. We are working on a Perl program which will yank only hit counts above say 25 with aggregate user dwells of multidays and more than X minutes per URL online hit dwell. Time we save here allows more site work and play. Those of you who download parts or all of our site preempt our abilities to monitor your dwells, but we assume that your need to download our work means you will spend much more time studying it. That is what we want and why we are doing Quantonics' work. We want as many as possible lay and some technical folk to commence their own quantum Chautauquas. It appears, after over six years of effort, we now have an abundance of quasi-quantum 'apostles.' We're still very small, though, barely managing sixth magnitude albedo in WWW's cosmos, but we have grown two orders of magnitude in six years.

Countless other tough to do tasks under WinTel have been rather simply and efficiently automated using our MAC's Unix. Lovely! Adherents 'use' PCs. They love their MACs.

Probably our largest, and only tentative, advantage is relative freedom from viruses, etc. Unix is fairly robust in that way. Of course, it too is a formal system and all formal systems have covert channels.

Interesting thing we just learned from is that Perl has a -T switch which will assist programmers in writing more secure Perl code. Do this on your MAC: prompt> perldoc perlsec. Thanks MACOSXHints!

Anxious to get back to Oregon... Soon...

One more item of interest. You may want to take a peek at our QELR of line and point. Imagine Foulis' quantum logic lattice with quantum points and lines!!! We now have a n¤vel Quantonics' basis for genuine quantum logic!

Best to all, especially to our diligent students,


PS - Timings to Kerryon!

Let's spend next four years looking for a quantum candidate!

April, 2004 News:

"The USA is a nation which lives in a small world but thinks USA's world is the large one; it is a nation which lives in a tenth of the truth, and thinks it is the whole. The USA cannot conceive any cosmos outside a certain tale or conspiracy or vision. Hence the more clearly USA sees the world divided into US citizens and non-US citizens, into our splendid selves and the rest, the more certain we may be that our USA is slowly and quietly going mad. The more plain and satisfying our state appears, the more we may know that we are living in an unreal world. For the real world is not satisfying.
The more clear become the colors and facts of US superiority, the more surely we may know we are in a dream."

Slightly paraphrased by Doug to make our point re: evils of classical dialectic. See original here.

by Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936),
British author of Charles Dickens, 'Dickens and America,' 1906.


Following reverberates Chesterton's remarks.

We quote Boris Danik's letter to Financial Times' editor which appeared in FT's April 14, 2004 issue:


"In her testimony to the September 11 Commission, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice asserted that the terrorists 'attacked us for who we are.' Similar declarations have been made in the last two years many times by various officials, notably by New York's two mayors. Such talk only leads the US deeper into self-delusion.

"The US was attacked for what it had done good or bad, as perceived by opposing sides. If our leaders do not understand this, they have lost touch with reality.

"Without such understanding, our government cannot come to grips with the fundamental causes of the present morass in the conduct of foreign policy and behavior across the globe.

"One problem is the loss of a sense of proportion. With 5 per cent of the planet's population (and 50 per cent of the world's military spending), a notion had gained currency that we can be telling the rest of the 6 billion what to do, and expect compliance."

(Our bold.)

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, NJ 07006, US

(We attempted to contact Danik at 1-973-???-???? but his number is unpublished.
Boris if you read this, please consider contacting Quantonics at 1-317-THOUGHT.)

Isn't it remarkable how closely Danik and Chesterton align?


"The cause of our current social crises,..., is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself."

By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,'
p. 102 (paperback), Bantam, 28th edition, May 1982.


Unambiguous evidence for said "...genetic defect in the nature of reason itself?"

911 Commission's swearing-in ceremony:

Interrogation: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

Response oath: "I do."

That oath is pure, unadulterated dialectical thing-king, CTM hyperbilge!
We cannot imagine a finer exemplar of Pirsig's "genetic defect."
Doug - 14Apr2004.

(Note that George Tenet after having taken said oath later said, paraphrased,
"I can only offer my perspective, not anyone else's perspective."
Here we see Tenet's own pragmatic admission of his awareness of quantum reality's 'many truths.')


We implore our students and readers to do one act based upon your reading of this month's Quantonics Society News: rent a copy of that video Red Dawn and watch it, or re-watch it if you have already seen it. In Red Dawn, who are the terrorists? Who are the imposers of "a new freedom, a new liberty?" How do 'the terrorists' ply their trade craft? How do 'the imposers' ply their trade craft? Please watch this video! Doug.

(As Clifford Geertz might query...) What is USA? Is it a classical nation? Does it have perimeter? Where do we draw that line? Where do people of US live? Where are US businesses? Where are US troops? All within a perimeter? Where do people of US communicate? Is our communications system a closed intra-US system? Is US a quantum nation? Is it a place? Does it have classical locus? Where is that locus? Is US a novel meme? Is it a classical concept? Does it have classical 'state?' Can it have classical 'state?' Does US ever stop? When? How? If US never stops, how can we analyze it? Don't we have to stop it to affix classical numbers to it so we can give it 'state' hood and so we can analyze it? Are US' individual people classical objects? Do individuals have state? Can individuals have state? Why do we kill terrorists? To give them ideal classical stoppable 'state.' That makes them ideally, classically Diracian predictable: when we kill them we can classically 'predict' they won't terrorize anyone anymore. When Muslim fundamentalist terrorists kill US people they can predict that those killed people will not be able to impose a US paradigm on the Middle East anymore. Are individuals (both US people and anti-US 'terrorists') classically analytic and determinate? Only if we-they stop-kill them! Are they quantum beings? Do US' people and Muslims all think alike using locally-politically correct 'common sense?' Should we all think scientifically and classically 'identically?' Should we be acculturated, educated, trained, proselytized, and disciplinary-matrixed to thingk identically? Like this: "Kill the Satanic Bastards!" Is that good think-king? Is that thing-king?

For one classical concept, USA, unfortunately, is an institution. It is a nation. It is a melting pot culture. Perhaps most importantly, USA classically is, unfortunately, a paradigm.

However, we must admit: A paradigm, not the paradigm!

GW Bushagain views USA as an objective, classical, fundamental and ideologically closed national "our way or the highway static paradigmatic" institution composing 'the people.' He uses that language repeatedly. Worse, as our editorial paragraphs above hint, to Bushagain USA is the institution, the world democracy paradigm! To him, our model is the model which must be imposed upon other nations of our world while "expecting compliance!" (FYE, USA is not a democracy! USA is, constitutionally, a federated republic; from a classical conspective a nearly perfect Attic (Grecian) exemplar.)

In Bushagain's press conference with Israel's Sharon on April 14, 2004, Bushagain stated unambiguously that institutions are above people. He said that! That is a wicked form of imperialist-nation-state fascism. No institution can be nor should be above any individual (Read J. S. Mill.). But our complaint here is that Bushagain and his Sidisian somnambulant herd want to impose a USA paradigmatic democracy on Iraq and all other Middle-Eastern countries. To us, in our opinion, that is an evil more wicked than state fascism presuming itself above individualism. But ponder their similarities. Aren't they both spawn of hegemonous minds? That is why we claim state and notions of state as paradigm are a threat to freedom of individuals everywhere. That is why, we think, Iraqis are fighting us on their turf. We do not offer Iraqis freedom, we offer them democracy ("our way or the highway, you are either for us or against us, there is no neutral ground, etc.") which is just another Anglo-Greco-US paradigm: a paradigm which does not fit their Muslim culture. Bushagain and his inepts simply do not grasp this most apparent issue. That set of blinders is what will put them and their ignoble ilk out of business...soon.

Science tends to believe that paradigms are general, but they are not! Scientists bootstrap and induct paradigms as general, then they fail! For politicians it is convenient to agree with science, but that is a huge mistake! Paradigms are specific! National cultures are paradigms! National cultures are specific! Paradigms are not generic! We cannot go from nation to nation, with whom we have disagreements, and impose our national paradigmatic democracy (federated-republicracy) on them, and expect compliance! We would not let them do that to us (e.g., movie Red Dawn) and we must not do that to them. To do so begs our own ultimate demise...

Do we really care about our great nation, our great USA? If we do, why do we allow fundamental classical inepts like Bushagain destroy it?

Do we, can we perceive a potential reality that we may be destroying our own nation via Pirsig's "...genetic defect within the nature of reason itself?"

Doug believes, that unless we change our ways, terrorism will ultimately defeat our USA! (But that is Doug's belief, it is n¤t the belief! However, Doug feels confident that he has shown and does show why he believes that.)


Allow us to distill our October, 2003 through March, 2004 months' of Feuilleton Chautauqua:

Quantum individuals have quantum free will.

Classical societies do not believe in individual free will. Classical societies teach 'the people' that they do not have free will, rather they have 'rules' which they must abide and adhere. Given their extreme dialectic acculturation, classical individuals believe that they do not have free will, rather they must abide and adhere 'rules.' Classical societies teach 'the people' that a society of individuals with free will leads to anarchy and chaos. That is how society keeps us all in their paradigmatic one culture fits all box (Chesterton's "small world," and Danik's "lost touch with reality," above.). That dialectical belief is what Pirsigean defectively-gene-rates disrespectful opposition among cultures. Jihad! (Pirsig's "...genetic defect..." a defect of dialectic reason.)

Terrorists have free will, and about that no classical society can do much short of arbitrary preemption, e.g., disrespectful mass cultural murder of an entire nation, AKA "war." Yes, and that is what we see happening now, on our tellys every day.

Let us recall our USA's war of liberation from that huge national Anglican-imperialistic taxation-crazed oppressor Great Britain over 200 years ago. Remember how British troops marched as ideal societal platoon groups into a band of free will USA terrorists? Who won?

Are there similarities to what is happening in Iraq? Who will win? (A more interesting query here might be "Should they?" Then "Why?" Can USA's people pretend to wear Iraq's oppressed sandals in light of our own revolution for independence? Is Bush acting like an Anglo-Saxon King who oppressed our new nation in a similar manner? In our view this is a better metaphor than that CR-SOMwit Kennedy's "Bush's Viet Nam." Would our pilgrims and pioneers have allowed Great Britain to preside over our individual free will, rights and our constitutional emersos?)

Why did USSR collapse? From the top, "rules is tules for fules," our way or the highway, King-lead totalitarian socialism!

Terrorists do not follow rules! Terrorists break rules! Societies make rules!

Classical dialectical society does not stand a chance against a mass of individual free wills, terrorists or not!

As Beth would say, "And there you have it."

Doug reiterates...while fully cognizant of his own human fallibility... How can we, rather what is a more probable way we, can defeat terrorism? Free will. Free individual will. Abandonment of classical societal (Demos will) rules. What does that mean? We need to ask more questions...

What is Demos will...common will? Who decides? Is it safe for individuals to permit society (What is society? What is 'the people?') and its individual leaders (What is a leader? Is a good leader a politician? Politicians are self-admitted, self-determined, self-evident hegemons, spendthrifts, cheats and liars! So are popes, bishops, religious leaders, union leaders...) to decide? Was it safe for Jews to permit Hitler to decide? Was it safe for Giardano Bruno to let Clement VIII decide? Was it safe for Iraqis to let Madass Hussein decide? Is it safe for US to allow GW BSBushagain decide? Is it safe for Muslims to permit Bushagain and his inept US administration to decide? Do you want a group, e.g., Nazis, to decide what your individual liberties are? Isn't it clear and ostensible that no group can decide all individuals' freedoms and liberties without trampling, to some extent, all individuals rights? This is what J. S. Mill meant when he wrote:

"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."

For a proemial exemplar, we have to go back to our war of liberation from Great Britain.

We have to arise, we must wake from our Great Social Somnambulation, people!

We have to nanoclinically terrorize "the terrorists." We have to do that as individuals with individual free will. We have to go after them nanosurgically one at a time, without collateral harm to innocents and apparent innocents, without murdering whole cultures. We cannot wear macroscopic British Platoon colors and march in pure idyllic social macropattern perfection against those terrorists who would deprive our individual freedoms. We must act as individual counter-terrorizing terrorists on behalf of our group of individuals. Note that this is how our CIA worked 25 years ago before our nation's retrospectively silly liberal socialists decided to politically destroy it. Have they learned a lesson? We think they will tear it down again as soon as it becomes 'effective' again. CIA's system was very quantum then. It only failed when we forced classical 'rules is tules for fules' on it. But CIA as a quantum system isn't enough!

USA must become a quantum society of quantum systems of quantum individuals!!!

Terrorists cannot defeat a quantum society, in a manner that terrorists cannot covertly decrypt quantum communications. Doug's opinions...

More important is how, anti-Bushagain, we can defeat terrorism. A good analogy of terrorists is flies. Flies have quantum free will. That's what many of us, as classicists. dislike most about them, due our classical acculturation. Despite what GW BSBushagain told Condoleezza, we must learn to virtually, quantumly "swat flies." (BSBushagain's dialectic just keeps getting him in more and more trouble. Say g'bye BSBushey Boy. Did any of you see Imus at 7:04 CDT 13April2004? Wow! We thought our words were too strong... Go Imus!)

All available possible technology cannot deal classically 'effectively' (consistently and completely) with a single, determined terrorist! (If you do not agree, just keep watching real world events as they play out...)

No set of classical "rules is tules for fules" and beliefs can deal classically 'effectively' (consistently and completely) with a single, determined terrorist!

By classical 'definition' rules cannot change! (Brits had to wear red uniforms and march in platoon 'order.') Rules are stuck, classically! Classical stux sux! Quantum flux is crux!

Terrorists do not obey classical rules!

That, folks, is what will destroy USA: flux is crux terrorism over stux sux socialist, nationalist, political, state-ic classicism.


A great analogy here is one regarding viruses in our current computing and internet systems.

Can those viruses be permanently (ideally classically) stopped?

Individual viruses can be mitigated, but an unlimited number of new viruses can be generated which can behave like terrorist acts on our classical systems. We cannot stop latter. There is no general classical antivirus, just as there is no general antiterrorist classical Bushagain "war" response. They can just keep coming at us and force us to use all our resources to futilely attempt to defend. That is why we say said terrorists will ultimately win. Really.



See Kurt Gödel's two Incompleteness Theorems. See Quantum Uncertainty. See Bell's Theorem. See Foulis' Quantum Logic. Read Bell and LaPadula. Study Security Theory. Study Game Theory. Study Nash's Equilibrium. And so on... Bush's administration knows nothing, more likely little of any of this... That is why we call them blindered and inept. Certainly they do not know how to turn all this into an effective quantum response to terrorism. Their classical lingo is a dead give-away that they are SOMwits par excellence.

All current computing systems are classical: Formal. Mechanical. Bushagain. Fundamental. Analytic. Stoppable. Innately non-quantum adaptive. Some are classically adaptive and thus still mechanical.

All classical systems have covert channels, and it is impossible to build a classical system without covert channels. Ask any military security specialist. Best they can do is 'physical security.' Bell and LaPadula called it "the simple security condition."

But our currently-classical society is incapable of providing classical Homeland Security!

Homeland Security is a classical system. It has covert channels which any terrorist can innovatively penetrate at will. There is no way for any classical system to defend itself against terrorists and viruses!!!

Now, folks, that is real. That is why we have said The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are a waste of money and life. Ditto our oxymoronic "Iraqi Freedom" War on Iraq.

What can we do? Go quantum!

Recall Tom Petzinger's excellent text, The New Pioneers. Petzinger wrote what terrorists intuit: "The only rule is there are no rules." (Petzinger is a staff writer for The Wall Street Journal.)

As long as our classical society forces itself to adhere classical rules, terrorists can defeat us, in time. "Tiiii....iiii...iiimmmm...mmmee is on our side, yes tiii...iii...iiiiime is on our side, yes it is."

Freedom wins. Classical 'societies' though they talk about it alot (and never walk it) are antithetical individual freedom. Rules are antithetical individual freedom. "Rules is tules for fules."

Again, "And there you have it."

Doug - 15April2004.

End aside.

Terrorism doesn't run on classical 'cause-effect' mechanical interactions. It runs on qualitative surprise and extreme (to a classicist) 'illogical' and 'irrational' emotion. No logical society can defeat terrorism. (Classicists believe that if you do not believe what they believe you are 'illogical' and 'irrational,' even 'insane.' Nearly all 'social' groups suffer this mental malady. Does latter appear as an oxymoron to you? It does to us.)

But Doug, "What kind of society can defeat terrorism?"

This is Doug's heartfelt opinion... Doug is convinced that a quantum society can defeat terrorism! Trouble is, our great USA will never in any foreseeable future adopt quantum societal measures, certainly not in time to defeat terrorism. To do that, USA as a nation would have to embark on a massive reform in how it views reality and how it does its thinking about reality. Just as our 911 Commission expects US institutions to adopt recommended reforms, USA as a nation itself would have to be willing to adopt reforms. Do you believe USA would attempt that? Nor do we. It may be that terrorists will force USA to do that reform, fighting tooth and nail for some untenable duration.

Doug is unwilling to admit defeat, but it appears demonstrable to us that USA society and what it believes (CTMs) are in methodological processes which may be guaranteeing their own defeat. (Doug now, regrettably, accepts this, personally, as fact.)

Our society is an antique dialectical society. We claim rational thought and rational intelligence. We are an objective, quantitative society. Evidence? Bush and his inept administration. Clinton and his inept administration. Our institutions, laws, academies, our view of ourselves as exemplar "free world leaders." But more evidence... We do not believe in a free world! We believe in an edict of imposed dialectical, institutionally-hegemonous, democracy. We are imposing democracy on Iraq, and we plan to incrementally do that to all Middle East nations.

When one nation or any nation imposes its Demos will on any other nation, have we made our world more free? When Christians and Muslims impose their religion on any other cultural belief system, have we made our world more free?

Anybody who believes 600 million logical, paradigm-stuck Christians will defeat 2 billion spiritually, emotionally free-willing Muslims should spend some moments doing some real thinking. However, we expect more idiocy from Bushagain's 'administration.'

Our view is that USA will defeat itself based upon its naïve and locally realistic beliefs. (Local realism is essentially radically mechanical realism. Many philosophers view 'local realism' as naïve. We agree.)

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

See you here again in early June, 2004!


March, 2004 News:

Feuilleton Installment:



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

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

On March 18, 2004 our index page for Quantonics experienced ~5 hour 'outage' between about noon and 5pm Pacific Daylight Time. Doug did it by superposing our Mac index over our Wintel index. Accept our apologies for any inconveniences. This is our first time in over six years, that we know about, to have an outage like this, and it certainly is not representative of Quality which we seek in Quantonics. We just started using Pathfinder (a superb product) on our MACs and made a mistake doing so. Our problem, no one else's. Doug.

This News is being published early for a variety of reasons, some of which appear below. Our next installment should appear first week of May, 2004.


On March 18 and 19, 2004 we heard George W. Bush utter another of his SOMwitted dialectical formalisms, "There is no middle ground."

Classically that absence of "middle ground" is SOM's wall (From now on we are adding another aphorism to our growing list describing SOM's wall: Bush's Blinders.).

Quantumly that absence of a stable, immutable "middle ground" is a manifestation of absolute quantum flux: quantum reality's middle is always changing at up to Planck rates. Quantumly there is stable middle ground.

So we have to ~agree with him on both counts. Except we d¤ n¤t see both as physial generalities. Bush does.

To Bush "There is no middle ground" is a generality. In that notion we see his accompanying statement "There is no, shall be no, neutrality." That's another generalism, among countless others, adding to our view of him as a naïve realist. John Casti and Werner DePauli tell us that Fritz Mauthner saw in naïve realism's notions of generality great potential for abuse of power. And here we have empirical evidence of Bush's naïve generalities attending another political abuse of power. See Casti's and DePauli's Gödel, 2000, Perseus, p. 71 of hardbound ed.

Here's our problem though, if Bush decides to eliminate all 'infidels' with whom he shares "no middle ground," in this particular case, George Bush will have to eliminate all of us. Why? He cannot share a formal or quantum middle ground with anyone. Doesn't Bush sound like Usama bin Laden and his Muslim clerical pals? "Kill all the infidels! Kill the Satanic bastards!" Bush claims Christianity as his belief system, but wouldn't his savior Jesus Christ kick him out of their temple? Bush's hate and animosity are making Sengean negative USA diplomatic deposits in nearly every other country's national accounts. But Doug, "Dude's from Texass boy! He's a rough rider! Rides high in d' saddle."

We saw Bush with our troops on telly other night. You won't believe what image leapt into Doug's quantum stage: Michael Dukakis, Tank Driver. Somehow those disparate images melded, just then.

Bush isn't listening. (Actually, we worry about his mental capacity to do that.) To us, he is (perhaps has become) a formal nut case. Our global neighbors, most of them, hate us now. Why? Because of our state-sponsored imperial-nationalist terrorism: Our "War on Iraq." However, some of those neighbors are counseling diplomacy and discussions. Are our neighbors thinking well? Are they thinking better than Bush? Should we be listening vis-à-vis telling?

What do really great leaders do? Attack and kill? Terrorize? Troglodytes and Neandertaliban do that. Shouldn't great leaders seek counsel? Shouldn't great leaders have and demonstrate great judgment? Shouldn't great leaders seek peace with a fathomless depth of patience and superhuman grit? Shouldn't leaders wield power with extreme caution and care? Shouldn't Bush talk first and kill later? Nope! "Shoot first, aim later, so smoke won't get in your eyes." It's called retrospection and classical formal analytic induction. A genuinely shrewd dude.

But formal logic, by itself, can't ride a bicycle and it can't win a war.

Few people know this, but our USA is 'formally' bankrupt. We currently have, as a nation, unfunded Social Security and Medicare account deficits of at least $51 trillion! That's about $170k for every person in USA and about $500k for every wage earner. If you owed $500k would you be bankrupt? Could you pay it off? For some, that's no problem, but for roughly two thirds of US' population it would invoke personal bankruptcy. Is that a problem? Can we ignore it? Do you think it will go away? Do you think it will get worse? How quickly could you pay it off? What happens to USA if we all shrug?

Politicians like Bush,"full faith and credit," spend our 'Trust' funds on war and social engineering 'projects.' They exhibit massive fiscal irresponsibility, then throw someone like Martha Stewart, a fiscal conservative producer of wealth and jobs if there ever was one, in jail. Now WHO should be going to jail? Who are the REAL crooks and their Kelly-hachetmen? And their next acts will be to terrorize us with their inept cures for that deficit. That deficit isn't a fraction of our GNP, it's FIVE TIMES our GNP folks. That number is staggering, yet it doesn't include our current account deficit of $4.1 trillion, and huge current private indebtedness. But instead of taking care of us Americans first Bush has dedicated himself to "Protecting the Iraqi people!" Bush and his administration have their priorities misaligned with contemporary world conditions. In our view, Bush and his administration have tipped the 'rary way past balance into extreme imbalance. Greenspan is clueless or has had his lip zipped. It is time for them to go. Even though it is too late, it is time to Kerry on. (Re USA bankruptcy: see The Chronicle, 'Entitlements Imperil America's Future,' by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns.)

Yes, it's too late, and Bush should have been applying diplomacy to his included-middles instead of declaring general absence of their neutrality. But Bush isn't a noble human, is he? He, similar Slick, is a cut below...

Doug's opinions.


Again, we need to speak briefly on current news, especially Martha Stewart's 'conviction.' Beneficially, our Martha comments here align well our nicely progressing feuilleton Chautauqua.

USA's legal system adheres a formal system called 'law.'

All formal systems are both inconsistent and incomplete. (Regardless of perspective, all systems are always "quantum uncertain.")

Our USA legal system 'formally' says "Martha Stewart is guilty." Technically that is a formal 'theorem' in our legal system now. Our news media have propagated that 'theorem' abundantly. Fox Snonews blares it in huge letters: GUILTY! They must feel as though they have another 'absolute truth' to hypocritically embrace. "When you have 'absolute truth' on your side you do not need to be 'fair and balanced.'" Supertrueper axiom 13!

Incredible as it may appear to any classical mind, due innate and intrinsic inconsistency and incompleteness of formal systems, that statement, "Martha Stewart is guilty," is unprovable in USA's formal legal system.

What can we do to fix that notable USA legal system flaw? If we leave that system (jump out of said formal legal system's axiomatic box) to metaprove that statement's 'trueness,' we still cannot assess its verity because any other formal (there are an unlimited number of) metasystem(s) we enter has an analogous problem. Too, heterogeneity plus comtextual and systemic animacy of those metasystems implies and entails subjectivity of any assessment.

Our USA legal system is illegal, folks! Why? It is formal. It cannot accomplish what it claims: "Our USA legal system can prove Martha Stewart's guilt." That is a lie! Our legal system lies! It cannot objectively prove Martha Stewart's guilt. Her guilt is unprovable in any formal system. Formal systems are incapable of assessing absolute verity. At best, while claiming system formality, they can only be "undecidable." No honest court and jury in any formal legal system can do anything but decide they are uncertain. Indeed, all any court and jury can achieve is non objective belief and opinion: belief and opinion are anybodies' opinions and thus subjective. To claim ideal objectivity when all you can achieve is subjectivity is hypocrisy. (Regarding our feuilleton Chautauqua A societal culpability caveat: Prosecutors and judges work for the government. Also, they filter jurors to select Hyperboolean trueper mind sets. And attorneys impose ideal binary questioning and answering. It's all a huge ruse perpetrated on USA's people.)

Our USA legal system is bogus: a formal charade.

Notice how governments purposefully lie to their people in claims that their legal systems are just and capable of valid assessment of guilt and innocence. "We are a nation of laws. We live by 'rule of law." Bogus Bobbie Streisand Babel!

Why? Why do governments and other 'social' organizations lie about their own legal (in)validity? That issue is essence and quintessence of our feuilleton Chautauqua. It is essence of current imbalance twixt individual freedom and societal control. We are writing about ways to improve that balance, here, in Quantonics.

Recursively, then, what 'law' assesses said government's guilt for lying? In our view, only culturally quantum~coherent individuals can do this. In our view, no formal system will voluntarily self-assess its own formal (in)validity.

Folks formal 'law' does not work! It is demonstrably invalid! Any government's perpetration of 'law' as carte blanche absolute is a sheigmful deign to feign. Any government's, judge's, prosecutor's, jury's, and media's belief and opinion that they can legally (formally and correctly via 'due process') 'convict' anyone is a sheigmful deign to feign.

What does quantonics say about Martha Stewart? Whatever attribute we wish to assess about her or anyone its 'verity' (verdict) is always both its attribute and said attribute's quantum complement. Implication? Its verity (verdict) is subjective! ~Specifically then Martha Stewart is both quantum guilty and quantum innocent. But so are all "of us!" We are not classical objects behaving ideally-classically-objectively in ways that formal systems demand! We are quantum emergent beings living in a quantum (non formal) world. Martha is a quantum being, not a classically ideal and formal object. However, our legal system and fundamentalist media have just treated her as though she is a formal object! That is a genuine example of our invalid legal system's dialectical, formal "abuse of power."

Formally, "George W. Bush is guilty of lying about Iraq" is 'true.' Quantumly GWB is both a liar and a truth teller. Latter is real. But formally shouldn't we impeach him for lying to our entire nation? Why do we let government officials off formal law's hook, and not Martha? Bush is one of the BIG people and Martha is one of the little people. Bush is above the law and Martha is below it! That is what classical societies do: place 'law' above individuals, unless those individuals are society 'representatives.' Legal formality places society above individuals. Our last sentence takes on vastly powerful interpretations when we ponder society and individual in classical and quantum con(m)texts.

Let's use our quantonic script to quickly illustrate an interim portrayal of what classical vis-à-vis quantum descriptions of Martha's guilt assessment look like:

Our classical assessment is a deluded Hyperboolean 'ideal' either-or. It is always unfair and imbalanced (due its radical formalism and radical finalism), often wrong (e.g., DNA tests are rescuing countless folk from bogus imprisonment), and seldom proportionate. (Martha's punishment is notably disproportionate her 'crime.' We assert these facts heighten many citizens' disrespect for government and its classical formal fundamentalisms.) These words and ponderings demonstrate, we believe, unambiguously that our classical legal system is genuinely bogus. Its judgments are routinely bogus which we know empirically from actual experience. And as a practicing and fledged formal system it denies its own guilt! What court shall judge it? An imminent quantum legal system court!

Our quantum assessment is a real and complementary both~all~while~and~many.

Empirical? If your judgment is that classical society is above any individual (society rules; formal judgment is a privilege of inert and state-ic societal power) you are an ideal formal classicist. If your judgment is that individuals are autonomously coherent society (society is a quantum flux; society serves; society must not formally judge individuals unless it is willing to be judged by individuals; all quantum judgments are quantons and all remediations are proportional) then you are closer to adhering quantum reality's uncertainty.

How can we better practice a quantum process of judgment? See our continuing Chautauqua below. Our society's modes of thought must become more quantum Gödelian. We must cease being radically Hilbertian.

We confidently draw our Quantonics line here: formal 'law' is a crime against humanity! A crime against 'the people.'

Doug's opinions. (Our quantonics~reasoning above finds its bases in Mauthner, Tarski, Gödel, Turing, Hofstadter, quantum science, Jefferson, Mill, etc. For good formal system examples, see John Casti's and Werner DePauli's excellent Gödel, Chapter 3, 2000, Perseus. See Mae-wan Ho's 1993 1st ed. p. 153, and 1998 2nd ed. p. 215, the Rainbow and the Worm, World Scientific. See Feferman's et al., Kurt Gödel Collected Works Volumes, OxUP, 1986 forward. We have yet to delve deeply into Mauthner and Tarski, but we sense analogues with James and Renouvier.)


Politically, what does 'The people,' mean? Philosophically? Metaphysically? Culturally? Socially? Individually? What classical semantics can we mechanically, formally attach 'The people?' What quantum hermeneutics can we complementarily imman 'The people?'

Is 'the people' an analytic sum, an integral totalitarian + one + one + one... = 'the people?' If so, aren't we just another analytic synthetic object? Isn't classical society just an object we can classically label 'the people,' the objective people,' 'the totalitarian people,' 'the communist-union-catholic people,' 'the Demos.' Hitler: "The people make the nation." Mussolini: "The nation makes the people." Those are totalitarian analytic sums, folks! Classical formal analyticity!!! Whither Naziism, whither fascism: Classical formal analyticity!!! Whither democracy... Whither republicanism... Whither federalism...

Politics claims it has societal positive analytic 'law' on its side, but we just showed you above how formal 'law' is bogus, genuinely bogus. Does that make politics bogus? Politicians? Does politics feel bogus to us just now? Politicians? We are the people, aren't we? Why do politicians think they can represent us? Isn't that bogus on its face? If they view us as an analytic sum, it is certainly bogus. Can anyone represent you, and your neighbor, and... Should anyone claim to be capable of doing that? Are they lying if they make that claim? So, really then, what good is representation? Isn't representation bogus? Isn't it just a formal model of us? Perhaps worse is that representation puts words in all our mouths, doesn't it? Who spoke for you when Bushels of Bushagain decided to go to war with Iraq, hmmm? What about Ashcropt and the Patriot Act? What is a patriot? Is it the people? Does a patriot 'represent' you? Which you is that patriot?

What does Slick William mean when he says "The people?" Bushels of Bushagain? Kerryon? Dimbaughlb? Blather? EitherOReilley? Bendings? PofHannity? Brokencaw? Hilarious? Ken-eddie? Are talking heads 'the people?' Who legitimized them as representatives? Are they worth your time as an individual? Aren't they even more bogus than politicians? And talking heads expect exorbitant marketing fees (~30% of viewing time) for what they do for the people.

We believe philosophically it does not matter! Our list composes fundamentalists: Radical left. Radical right. Fascists all, indeed. In a large and long view, what they mean by "The people" doesn't matter. But short term, next 5-10 generations of people here on Earth, it matters vastly. We are writing this feuilleton because, short term, it does matter.

Both radical right and radical left objectify 'The people' as a political 'state' monism. An analytic homogeneous sum! Common man! Communis vitae! Demos! One size fits all! One individual fits all! Equality! Clonicity! Model citizen! One societal ideal fits all!

Why do that? To retain societal hegemony on 'model citizens.' To enforce political correctness. As Boris Sidis says, "To somnambulate us." To create 'laws' and cultural 'mores' which 'correct' amodel citizens. To assure somnambulant citizens.

But what if 'The people' is a natural pluralism? Heterogeneous? No size fits all! No individual fits all! No society fits all! No culture fits all! No 'law' fits all!

Do our individual views as The Peopleings matter? Or should some homogeneous belief system tell us what The People means and what model People must thingk? Can we decide, individually, for ourselves, or do we have to be told and taught? Carefully and 'properly' told and taught? 'Morally' and 'ethically' told and taught? When we carefully and properly tell and teach aren't we putting, those upon whom we impose said adherence, in some SOM's box? SOM's box: a monism, OGC, OGT, CTMs... Beware!

Do 'The People' all thingk alike? Do The People think omnifferently?

Do people in a society, ideally, think ~identically? Should they? If we accomplish that task, aren't we creating a bunch of mental clones? Folks that is what academia does, now, at Millennium III's beginning. That is just what 'science' attempts to achieve, now, at Millennium III's beginning. That is what our legal system attempts to achieve, now, at Millennium III's beginning... Christianity... Islam... Catholicism...

Or do people in any society all have omniffering memes about reality, spirituality, nature, politics, beliefs,...?

Why would anyone want us to thingk that we should all share 'normal sense,' 'general sense,' 'common sense,' and 'thingk alike.' Is there an advantage to any political genre-genus-tribe-union-clan-class-monotype to do so? What might that advantage, or those advantages be? Same-thingk.

Similarly, why would anyone (e.g., Doug and his Quantonics) want us to think that we should each have 'extraordinary sense,' and 'think omnifferently.' Are there advantages to any quantum political system-heterogeneity which does that? What might those advantages be? ESS.

Just what do we mean by The People?

We have come to believe that there is no formal analytic the people. What are our bases of that judgment?


Bases of judgment - A feuilleton Chautauqua distillation and plateau:

1Kurt Gödel Collected Works Volume I, p. 6 of paperback with 474 total pages including index, OxUP, editors: Feferman et al., 1986.
2 Classically, a theory's complements do not exist and if they do they are innately 'false.' Quantumly, a theory's complements are EIMA agents of said theory's exegesis.
As an exercise, try interpreting that classical dogma in a social context of heterogeneous cultures: one societal theory as the societal theory.

By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2021
Bases of Judgment

Judgment Hierarchy




Emergent Good Above Dynamic Good ·Physial novel emerscenture
·Requires emerscent linguistics for pragmathinking
·Requires acceptance of quantum evolution as real
Viewed (demoted by MoQ) as a subset of DQ phenomena Does not 'exist;' dialectically modeled as analytic, heterogeneous synthetic transformation Does not 'exist;' dialectically modeled as analytic, homogeneous synthetic transformation
Dynamic Good Above Static Good ·Physial absolute quantum flux; see QTMs
·Requires quantum linguistics for evolute thinking; see QELR

Dynamic Quality

See MoQ Emersc- itecture
Does not 'exist;' dialectically modeled as heterogeneous analytic (stoppable) motion Does not 'exist;' dialectically modeled as homogeneous analytic (stoppable) motion
Static Good Above Provability Physial uncertain quantum recursive persistency born of and mediated by Dynamic Good

Static Quality
Demoted by CTMs as a dialectical subset of Heterogeneous Truth Demoted by CTMs as a dialectical subset of Homogeneous Truth


Above Truth ·Absoluteness as quantum uncertainty
·Heterogeneous con(m)texts eliminate paradice
·Solomon Feferman says that Gödel "realized that analogous nonparadoxical arguments could be carried out by substituting the notion of provability for that of truth."1
Pirsig apparently knew little of Gödel Nonconceptual notion in CTMs (i.e., as distinguishable from a dialectic notion of ideal EOOO true | false) Nonconceptual notion in CTMs (i.e., as distinguishable from a dialectic notion of ideal EOOO true | false)
Truth Above Proof ·Hermeneutic subset of Static Good
·Requires quantumists to adhere rhetoric and pragmalogic
·Heterogeneous cowithinitness
·Many Truths
·Viewed (subsumed) by MoQ as a DQ-agent subset of SQ
·Heterogeneous relatively absolute predicate logic delusions
·Polylogical dialectic
·Homogeneous absolute predicate logic delusion
·Monological dialectic
·E.g., both Christianity and Islam believe that morality and ethics may be adjudged dialectically; that's how they absolutely decide who 'the infidels' are that is pure unadulterated fascism!
Proof   ·Descriptioningsquantons(theoryi,theory_complementsj)2
·Requires quantum animate, heterogeneous, EIMA rhetoric in place of classical stable, homogeneous, EEMD dialectic
·Replaces classical dialectical EOOO fascism with quantum rhetorical BAWAM sophism
·Any notion of ideal proof is nonabsolute; dialectic is deeply flawed and weak
·MoQ claims dialectic is a subset of [quantum] rhetoric
·Viewed (subsumed) by MoQ as a DQ-agent subset of SQ
Relative classical delusion of locally absolute truth based upon an assumption that SOM proof is valid Provisional classical delusion of a capability to assess absolute truth using a classical notion of proof based upon absolute dialectical falsifiability which depends upon ideal dialectical 'contradiction' based upon dialectically ideal formal and objective negation

By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2004-2021

Value and importance of this table cannot be overemphasized! It represents quintessence of what we mean when we say, "Quantonics is a new way of thinking." It shows ineptnesses of SOM and CR as formal logical means of thing-king. It shows how Robert M. Pirsig pointed us toward better ways of think-king. It shows how Quantonics' interpretations of quantum reality have improved on Pirsig's awesome accomplishments.

Students of Quantonics should study this table well and make it theirs. While doing that we must realize that 'proof,' 'truth,' and our hierarchical 'goods' carry omniffering semantics under each column heading. Too, you should be capable of describing what Pirsig, James, Bergson, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. would say about each column's hierarchy. Where is Plato in our hierarchy? Pirsig? Renselle? Where is quantum reality? Where is classical reality? Where is Newton? Einstein? Bohr? Feynman? Huygens? Turing? Gödel? Leibnitz? Bacon? Goethe? Kant? Descartes? Zeno of Elea? Where are you...

This table offers exegeses and exoterica for Doug's Martha Stewart and political formal 'law' rants just above. Our red, gray, and yellow uncloak and lay bare classicism's devastating failures of methodic formal thought. Our uncolored columns offer a horn of plenty of better. Plus, they offer lots of room to grow and emerge even more goodness. How? What is an example? Ponder this:


We middle-include that quanton as our own description of responsibility.

For us, this table justifies our decades of personal and more recently our Quantonics' work to show Pirsig's MoQ in Quantum Lightings. It feels good: a physial n¤vel æmærscænture plateau. Thank you.

Long term students may recall that big argument in The Lila Squad in late 1997. Doug wrote Pirsig about it. Pirsig responded. Our table above took all those years since then to gradually, Dynamically, parthenogenetically, become and emerge on Doug's quantum stage. Much of that argument was about what we then called "MoQ Architecture." You can see Doug's then much more classical language putting MoQ back in SOM's box with his use of 'Architecture.' Even so, Pirsig described Doug's thinking as more dynamic. We needed our Quantonics English Language Remediation to evolve our own, then more classical, thinking. We did. We are. We shall. (See MoQ Emerscitecture.)

Pirsig says MoQ is his gift to Earth's people. We accept it Sir. We are learning to live MoQ Sir. Accept our profoundly felt respect-filled "thank you."


We intended to continue our feuilleton Chautauqua, instead ,we judge this, given our results above, is good stagings for pausings.

This ends our 2003-2004 Feuilleton. Doug.


What's happening in Oregon? We are adjusting well to this phenomenal paradise. Its rurality is gorgeous. Its urbanity is mostly quaint, especially smaller villages. Its people are friendly, but own a larger social distance than most places we have stayed and visited. Oregon is hugely underdeveloped and locals want to keep it that way. But there are prices to pay for that: high unemployment, lower quality and accessibility to primary and secondary education (we hear there is significant but informal kibbutz-style home schooling in Oregon — for us this is a powerful tell of Mae-wan Hoesque style physical quantum cohesion with individual autonomy: people solving shared problems outside unneeded institutional authority), difficulty for parents of younger children to find what they would call adequate education. Oregon has no sales tax. However, its income taxes are relatively high (Top bracket is under $10k and rate is 9% on all above that!). Local and property taxes are higher than what we have been accustomed. Gas is more expensive here. Retail medical service is at least 50% higher here and fewer available physicians. So there are some causes for pauses.

But upsides include a populace which loves and respects their land. Coastal air is clean in a way that when you leave it, even going into our Cascade valley, you can tell. Food here is different and in most ways we believe better. Lamb is superb here. Beef is not as good as Midwest. Pork and bacon have a wild taste. Most bacons are salt cured and we are used to sugar-hickory cures. Seafood is unrivaled. Veggies are unbelievably crisp and fresh. Alcohol is very expensive due high state and local taxes (A 1.75 Dewars is nearly $50!). But undistilled spirits may be shipped from out of state. We buy most of our wines and ports that way, e.g., Norman Vineyards in California. (Check out their web page. Their red Zinfandels are 'to die for.') Most valleys in most states have lower quality air and Oregon is no exception there. A big individual freedom issue for us: there is less feeling of government and institutional intrusion in one's life. Societal boxes and regimented dogma are, mostly, ubiquitously absent. Oregonians from our perspective are freer than folks near USA's right coast. (BTW, Doug is a native, but only by birthright.)

For us, Oregon's advantages outweigh a few downsides.

A clear example is their self-determined euthanasia (~Hemlock society) law. Doug believes each of us, and only ourselves — not any other person or institution — has a natural physial right to self-termination. Oregon law permits that and assists that only when a physician determines a patient is imminently terminal. (There's that damned societal SPoV sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, again.) In Oregon we have an institutional "right to die" under select and specific acute and dogmatic conditions. This is what we mean when we use that otherwise ugly word euthanasia. It fits Pirsig's MoQ quite well as Garn LeBaron describes in his paper published here in Quantonics.

By-the-way SOMwits Ashcropt and Bushelings-no-more want to institutionally and globally decide that we cannot individually exercise our right to die. Notice how similar their hegemonous beliefs are on issues of non ideally female-male dichotomous marriages — again, society, in their eyes, is above individuals. Ugh! Notice that they do not represent themselves as individuals. To them, they represent society, they are 'the people.' They believe they have bootstrapped, induced, and determined (i.e., classical) authority to say what 'the people' want. But that is impossible, isn't it? Quantum reality will not permit classical bootstrapping, induction and determination. No individual (especially SOMwits with state-ic mindsets) can represent all of us as a quantum~animate emerging heterogeneity of individuals. Ashcropt and Bushelings-begone believe in classic, Greco-Roman Demos will institutional authority over individuals which authorizes them as state-approved-endowed-empowered individuals to decide a growing litany of constraints on us. Individual-coercing government of the government, by the government, for the government. Fascism! Fascism! FASCISM! Did Doug say "FASCISM?" Personally, Doug is fed up with these abysses of staysses maleficents.

Not much of an improvement, but we are expecting a very Kerry New Year. A little leftist fascism for a change. Ugh! Nuts and bolts leftist radicalism. (No way will a pro-society-anti-individual-Bushelful-of-Ashcropt get our vote again! Have you noticed how Monica's superposing tornado devoured that Bushel-Slick-Bushel sandwich? It's a quantum memeo, folks; humor intended. Again, we see so vividly how flux is crux and stux sux. )

Thanks again for your persistent patronage and support in Quantonics, and thank you for reading.
(Accept our apologies for sharing our political anguish with you. Our wish and desire is for all of us to be free as we can be and quantum cohere our individual lives toward better. Towards peace.)

See you here again in early May, 2004!


February, 2004 News:

2003-2004 Feuilleton



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


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


"For, after all, obliteration of individuality, the maximum integration of the individual into the hierarchy of the educators and scholars, has ever been one of our ruling principles."

Hermann Hesse about Joseph Knecht, Ludi Magister Josephus III, Castalia
Magister Ludi, p. 3., Bantam, 1970, paper, 2nd printing.

"Individuals join together into a society; but the society, as soon as formed, tends to melt the associated individuals into a new organism, so as to become itself an individual, able in its turn to be part and parcel of a new association."

Henri Louis Bergson, Creative Evolution,
(Sounds like Borg, eh? :( Let's use Millennium III to unmelt our classical Borgness? )

"[E.g., Borgness-, societal-] Mechanism...discovers within the particular fact a certain number of laws of which the fact is thus made to be the meeting point, and nothing else: on this hypothesis it is the [e.g., societal-] law which becomes the genuine reality. Now, if it is asked why the one party assigns a higher reality to the fact and the other to the law, it will be found that mechanism and dynamism take the word simplicity in two very different senses. For the first, any principle is simple of which the effects can be foreseen and even calculated: thus, by the very definition, the notion of [societal] inertia becomes simpler than that of [individual] freedom, the homogeneous [e.g., society] simpler than the heterogeneous [e.g., individuals], the abstract [model] simpler than concrete [reality]. But dynamism is not anxious so much to arrange the notions in the most convenient [determinate§] order as to find out their real [inter]relationship[ings]: often, in fact, the so-called simple notionthat which the believer in mechanism regards as primitivehas been obtained by the blending together of several richer notions, and which have more or less neutralized one another in this very process of blending, just as darkness may be produced by the interference of two lights. Regarded from this new point of view, [dynamism regards] the idea of [e.g., individual] spontaneity is indisputably simpler than that of [e.g., societal] inertia, since the second can be understood and defined only by means of the first, while [dynamism regards] the first [i.e., spontaneity] is self-sufficient."

(Our bold and brackets.)
Henri Louis Bergson in his Time and Free Will, topic 29, p. 141.
Quantonics bottom line here is: quanton(spontaneous_simplicity,inertial_simplicity), ~ quanton(DQ,SQ).
Quantum ræhlihty issi b¤th~amdings ¤f apparænt abs¤lutæ flux co~wihth~ihn an apparæncy ¤f abs¤lutæ statihcihty.

§"Causality [conventional determinism: "foreseeable 'effects'"] applies only to a system which is left undisturbed [i.e., an "inert, inertial system"]."
Page 4, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, by P. A. M. Dirac, OSP, 1958 (multi-editions, 1930-1988).
(Our brackets.)

"He sympathized with socialism, but he disliked its deprecation of the individual and the genius. Taine's formula, which reduced all cultural manifestations to 'race, environment, and time,' was inadequate precisely because it left out the individual. But only the individual has value; everything else is a meanseven philosophy. And so we need on the one hand a state which shall understand that it is the trustee and servant of the interests of individual men and women; and on the other a philosophy and a faith which shall 'offer the universe as an adventure rather than a scheme,'~ and shall stimulate every energy by holding up the world as a place where, though there are many defeats, there are also victories waiting to be won."

William James Durant in his The Story of Philosophy description of William James' philosophy
p. 563, 2nd ed., 1926, 1927, 1933, 592 total pages
~Durant's brief quote of Chesterton

"Sociotics are evolving quantonic patterns of value at MoQ's Social Level. Most do n¤t, [while] some sociotics may threaten more highly evolved intellectual patterns of value."

Doug Renselle in Quantonics' Coined Quantonic Terms

Due issues of US Constitution and marriage as a constitutional ammendment, we feel obliged to comment on quantum vis~à~vis classical issues of human:

Why? It c¤mplements our efforts in our feuilleton Chautauqua, with 'marriage' offering us a good example of a classical notion which society attempts to force into a SOM dichon, a SOM either-or.

Classical society and classical individuals assume human sexuality is an ideal dichotomy: dichon(female, male). Classically, one is — or should be — either female or male. One may be only 'ideally' EOOO(female, male).

Quantum society and quantum individuals understand that human sexuality is, like all quantonic interrelationships, ensembles(ings) of probability distributions.

Anne Fausto Sterling offers a good quasi-categorical example in her March/April 1993 article titled 'The Five Sexes.' That article appeared in NYAS' then flourishing The Sciences. Sterling shows us how nature creates many variations on its sex theme. Maleness and femaleness appear as extreme ends of a sexual spectrum. In its middle are herms or hermaphrodites. Midway between herms and males are merms. Midway between females and herms are ferms. Today, over 10 years later, we can view sexuality as a quantum probability distribution, with male and female as quantum~modalities of anthropocentric sexuality. Too, we k~now that sexuality is quantum~genetic and we infer and intuit sexual preference~distributions have ~some affectationings in human quantum~geneticity.

When we do that any classical notion of ideal maleness and ideal femaleness evaporates. But classical society imposes, via its 'laws,' a mandate for that ideal. It is wrong in any quantum sense. It is unnatural in any real sense to impose that classical mandate.

Our view is that marriage is naught more than another classical 'legal contract.' As we have said elsewhere we view classical 'law' as naught but classical opinion. In our view classical 'law' has no absolute societal right to exercise hegemony over individuals. Classical society has 'taken' that 'right,' and now quantum~change is in ascension for quantum individuals to retrieve their rights from classical society.

Given that, and radicals' prior records on social and cultural notions which attenuate individual freedom (e.g., immutable 'traditional' adherence against: heterodoxy, heresy, 'female equality,' suffrage, choice, individual freedom, etc.), we believe any individual can (has a natural right based upon maturity~thresholded individual choice) to make a co(n)mjugal bond with any other individual. Too, it is important to recall that society does not 'give' us our individual rights! We take our, without infringing others', individual rights, vigorously. That is what we are seeing in California, New Mexico, etc., now. Perhaps more important is that classical 'law' will (shall) lose its 'force' over time. It is happening as we write. Societal 'legal' hegemony is in decline, and societal individual respect is waxing. So why bother with a license or permit? Best way for individuals to fight hegemony is to, as best as they can, ignore its edicts. And so we do. And so we are.

Radicals lose on most of their positions of hegemony. We believe they shall lose on this one too.

Politically, we have had it with radicals, left and right. Bush has shown himself as a radical conservative wholly worthy of imminent public derision. Conservative radicals are stux, and in our opinion stux sux! (We also say similar words regarding 'liberal' radicals.) Too, weighing our quantum perspective, we can easily fathom that any attempt to amend our USA Constitution to ban non 'ideal' marriages is di-scrimination via extreme classical hubris and arrogance. But what can we expect from ~fascist radicals? Anyway, more quantum~individual public reaction will stop this political Mickey Mouse before any congressional body needs to legislate. If it's classically wrong to discriminate race, then it's classically wrong to discriminate human sexuality in terms of opinionated pair-appropriate conjugation 'laws.' Bush's Babel is Bobbie Streisand all d' way.

Residual ponderables here, in our local cave, comprise two apparent memes: 1) Classical patriotic, social 'law' is fascist-1, and 2) Bush as a classical 'legal' hegemon must go. He has hurt our country irrevocably previously as a war monger and now as an anti-individual social hegemon. In our opinion, he is a genuine embarrassment to humanity. In some ways worse than Slick and Hilarious. Mayhaps 'tis too early for our views to avalanche... we'll see... if we are fortunate... we'll see...

However, we need a replacement quantumesque political candidate. Where is s~he? Lieberman was our tentative choice. Unfortunately, he didn't fare well in Demo primaries.

Any social patterns of Value which aren't uniformly good for all individual members of society aren't worth having. Why? They are anti-social!

What we expect is n¤t a classical democracy. Classical democracy is just another hegemon's dialectical dichotomy: either majority or minority. Dichon(majority, minority). It's a win-lose classicism: majority wins and minority loses. Ugly! Worse, in recent history, both are losing!!! Times are nigh for social and political reformation, folks! And we do not intend a classical "one size fits all." We intend mass customization of and by individual free will. Government of individuals, by individuals, for individuals vis-à-vis what we have today: government of society, by society, for society. Notice how massively omnifferent those two systems are. Quantum vis-à-vis classical.

Our perspective is that real society evolves as a quantum~cohesive group of quantum~autonomous individuals. We have pondered seriously a quantum word for what we just described. Mae-wan Ho describes it as a quantum society of quantons(cohesion,autonomy), a BAWAM of quantumly coherent quantum individuals all living in c¤¤bsfective, c¤respectful harm¤ny. N¤w we have to qualify that remark with our own memes: there is n¤ quantum harm¤ny with¤ut its c¤mplementary quantum disc¤rd. With¤ut quanton(harm¤ny,disc¤rd) we have n¤ quantum bases f¤r assessing bættær.


We offer a relevant quote from another Quantonics web page where Doug wrote...

"Any religion or regime which tells you its belief system is the belief system is intellectually, socially, and spiritually dishonest, thus in our view evil, ESQ, even Satanic (e.g., Syrian/Iraqi secular and profane Baath party Husseinism). For example, the "Messenger of God" and the "Son of God." Any belief system is only 'a belief system.' If you accept that premise, then you may be willing to concur that if there are many belief systems, it then is contingent among all of them to learn to (from a classical dialectical conspective, then paradoxically) both abide and respect one another. We call that epiphanous John Forbes Nash Equilibrium notion, 'quantum freedom.' To us, in our tiny and heuristic perspectives, that is what Nature is trying to teach us: how to get along with one another. We, like small children learning to play a violin, must gradually learn how to turn inter-belief/horsehair-wire conflict into (classically, dialectically, paradoxically) both heterogeneous and coherent harmony.

"See Mae-wan Ho in her the Rainbow and the Worm, 'As [quantum-] coherence maximizes both local freedom and global cohesion, it [describes] a relationship between [any] individual and [any] collective which has previously been deemed [classically dialectically] contradictory or impossible.' See p. 153, near end of ch. 10. (Our brackets to efface her classicisms and thelogos.)"

Why contradictory? That is what dialectical classical thingk-king methods (CTMs) do! They assess and adjudge 'ideal' either-one-or-the-other 'contradictions.'

Why impossible? Again, that is what dialectical classical thingk-king methods do! They assess any notions outside their one global context and one global truth belief system 'impossible.'

Classical CTMs want their culture, society, individuals and intellect to hold still. Henri Louis Bergson calls this roughly, "stateism simplicity." Colloquially we say it like this, "status quo is the way to go." Classical CTMs also want a monism: just one culture, one society, with 'equal' individuals sharing 'common sense' intellect.

Quantum QTMs believe cultures, societies, individuals and intellects are quantum heterogeneous, animate, evolving, etc. "Quantum reality changes all and is always changing." MoQites and quantumists call this, "dynamism simplicity." "Goings cowithinings quantum reality's flowings issi y-our wayings of goings."

End aside.

Thomas Jefferson realized limitations of classical society in his, "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." And, "The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a [quantum] wave." (Our brackets.) Those Jeffersonian quantum memes implicitly restrict what society can and should do; certainly no society should infringe any individual's natural rights. No individual should infringe on any other individual's natural rights. Mostly, this meme quantum~localizes to, "Respect mediates omniffering betterings." QELRed: "Respæct mædiatæs ¤mnihffering bættærings."

We must remember that in quantum reality no classical 'ideals' exist. No 'thing' is ideal, 'equal,' identical (even to itself), pure, absolute, ideally-opposite, complete, consistent, stable, independent, etc. Sexuality is not a classically ideal dichon(female, male). Marriage is not an ideal classical 'relationship.' Marriage is a quantum comjugal interrelationship, and it may not be ideally modeled, proselytized, and legalized as dichon(female, male). Quantum gender is free! Doug - 25-29Feb2004 - our opinions.


Heads up, readers! This month's News is first time we have used our novel, automated Quantonics English Language Remediation editor. Text in this month's News is viewed in two con(m)texts: classical and quantum. Quantum comtexts are remediated fully using our editor. You will see classical unremediated text commingling quantum remediated text. All this is done ~automatically by our editor. We are working on means to allow you to select unremediated text and see it remediated, AND to allow you to select remediated text and see it unremediated. That capability is roughly a year away, though. Temporarily, in its place, we will offer links to fully unremediated versions of some pages. Our first example of this is our Coined_Quantonics_Terms page. Right now, you can view it remediated as a whole and unremediated as a whole: two omnifferent web pages (see text at top of that page). Also, in April, we commence a steady and deliberate effort on our Quantonics font set. Its first versions will be classically static. Then, we will move to animated versions, and then emergent versions. Very innovative stuff, readers.

Just want to keep you up to date...

In this month's feuilleton installment we want to pursue memeos introduced in our Hesse and Bergson quotes above.

H¤wævær, antihcipating what issi t¤ c¤mæ ihn this amd subqsequænt feuilletons, ahll¤w uhs t¤ d¤ a brief ¤værvihew ¤f quantum mæmæos vis-à-vis classical 'notions' and their comparative affæcts ¤n ¤ur axi¤l¤gies (i.e., classical "value judgments," amd quantum "Valuæ jihudgmæntings") ¤f 'ræhlihty.'

Classical Proemial Putatives

Quantum Pr¤æmial Putatihvæs

Allowing that we only offer four bullet items under each 'class' of putatives, we can conjecture that each set of those four items quasi-fully perpends descriptions of those two 'classes' of reality. Of course each bullet is but a tip of an iceberg of fuller 'understandings.' Our heuristic for each 'class' is that most of our memeos and 'notions' for each 'class' of reality finds a comfortable home under one or more bullets in each 'class.'


What might be a simple example? Well, perhaps most readily noted, under classical putatives EOOO can reside comfortably under excluded-middle and monism. A simple example for our quantum putatives, recursion and self-reference commingle nicely under sophism and absolute animacy.

We can allocate most of our memeos and notions in a similar manner under those 'classes' of putatives.

So what does this give us? A more general set of perspectives of omnifferencings among classical and quantum 'realities.'

Now let's take a very simple example to show what happens when we 'think' in each of those 'realities.'

Take a simple word: "standing." Assume that its infix 'and' represents quantum 'reality's' included-middle. Given our classical putatives, we can say, "Reality's middle is excluded. Reality has no included-middle."

What happens when we apply our classical putatives to our example? Classicists can only 'see' "Sting!" Why? Classicists use CTMs to thingk. CTMs envelop and embrace our list of classical putatives.

Quantumihsts sææ "Stamding." (I.e., QELRæd 'standing' issi quantum "stamding.") Quantumihsts sææ ræhlihty's ihncludæd-mihddlings! H¤w? Quantumihsts uh QTMs t¤ thinkq. QTMs c¤here amd supærp¤sæ ¤ur list ¤f quantum putatihvæs.

What is 'wrong' with our example? Words and their characters are ideal classical objects. They aræ n¤t quantons. Whæn wæ hærmænæutihcahlly ihnterpret thæm ¤n ¤ur quantum stagæs as quantons, they t¤¤ have ihncludæd-mihddles. F¤r eample, 's' ihn "stamding" as a quantum s¤phism anihmatæly ihncludæd~mihddle~c¤mpænetratæs, ~supærp¤sæs, ~æntangles, amd c¤¤bsfæcts ihts w¤rd c¤mplæmænt "tamding." Dihtt¤ ¤thær charahcters ihn "stamding" ihn ihnterrelati¤nships wihth their c¤mplæmænts. Further, ihn quantum ræhlihty, "stamding" has quantum pr¤æmial putatihvæ ihnterrelati¤nships wihth ¤thær w¤rds ihn ihts sæntænce, prægmagraph, pagæ, amd d¤cumænt comtexts, etc.

Ecæpt f¤r ¤ur QELR, wæ d¤ n¤t have a g¤¤d way t¤ sh¤w that, yæt. T¤ d¤ iht m¤dæratæly wæll wæ nææd Quantonic m¤dalings ¤f quantum f¤nts. That ræquiræmænt list amd computati¤nal bamdwihdth aræ juhst ¤utsihde currænt technol¤gy. Bæing b¤ld, wæ shahll juhst g¤ ahead amd pi¤næær that pathway n¤w. Y¤u can sææ ¤ur væry æarliæst ændæav¤hrs hæræ.

There are countless similar examples we can use for each bullet under each class of putatives. Ditto combinations of putatives.

End aside.

OK, now on with our February, 2004 Feuilleton Chautauqua:

We need background on several sub-memeos, including: balance, individual SPoVs, individual intellectual SPoVs, societal SPoVs, and societal intellectual SPoVs. What do we mean by both classical and quantum:

  1. balance?
  2. individual?
  3. intellect? (e.g., individual intellect may be viewed as 'extraordinary sense' which is viable dynamically and immediately looking at now)
  4. society?
  5. intellect? (e.g., societal intellect may be viewed as 'common sense' which is only viable viscously and inertially looking pastistically at history)

Can we 'balance' classical interactions (Bergson calls them "associations") among items 2-5? How?

Can we balance quantum interrelationships (Bergson calls these (our emerqancy using Bergson's language), "intellectually sympathetic associations") among items 2-5? How?

How can we quantum~bæ like that child we wrote about, learning to play a violin? H¤w can wæ balance quantons(harmony,omnihsc¤rd)?

Those of you who are serious students of Quantonics can answer our question about possibility of classical balance quite readily. Assuming by classical 'balance' we intend a system which is in classical equilibrium, we have an enormous challenge! Why? Classicists treat individuals and groups of individuals ('The people') as objects. They treat intellect as objective. They treat societies as objective.

Classical systems require mechanical, 'physical interactions' to balance systems. But our scientists and theoreticians, using their anile Leibnitzian-Einsteinian-3-space-1-time 'reality' model, cannot even balance (~determine motion of) three animate bodies0. So, if they cannot balance classical physical systems, how might we expect them to balance countless 'societies' on Earth and countless individuals in any 'society?' Even only 'theoretically?' We cannot, and they cannot expect mechanical systems to be (capable of being) objectively balanced. Why? They treat their 'reality' as classically analytic. As students of Quantonics you realize that quantum reality is not analytic. Happily, we have ample quantum empirica to offer some heuristics:

  • Individuals aræ n¤t analytic.
  • Intellects aræ n¤t analytic.
  • Societies aræ n¤t analytic.

0"...the problem of determining the motion of three celestial bodies moving under no influence other than that of their mutual gravitation. No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies) is possible."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003.

It may be apparent to you that Britannica's statement says that classical analytics cannot describe interrelationships, only objects and their properties (classically, gravitational libration comes closest to what we mean by "interrelationship description").

Classical mechanics denies 'ether.' Without an immersive medium for quantons, interrelationships cannot 'exist.' One must assume both VES and its included-middle interrelationships (e.g., gravity) with all quantons to generally solve any n-body problem.

Einstein adhered Michelson-Morley results which deny 'ether,' and now we have that naïve legacy to live with.
Doug - 14Feb2004.

But what have dialectical classicists done to impose imbalanced and unbalancing analyticity on individuals, intellects, and societies? They have insisted, proselytized, and dogmatically mandated that:

  • individuals and groups are1 homogeneous,
(e.g., "all [humans] are created equal")
  • intellects are homogeneous, and
(e.g., "common sense")
  • societies are homogeneous.
(e.g., "one global culture fits all")

 1i.e., "should be"

Notice how classical use of 'equality' demands lisrable stability, immutability, staticity of individuals. Notice how that Platonic notion of classical reality induces a kindred notion of cl-one-d, identical "common sense," as Boris calls it "herd sense." Of course that is what Western cultural academia attempts to achieve at Millennium III's beginning.

Notice how 'one' implies a classical homogeneous monism. That 'one' begs further classical notions of 'union,' 'only one,' 'the only one,' 'one common sense fits all,' 'Demos,' Demos will,' 'The people's will,' etc. (Vis-à-vis, "A peoples' wills.")

That is how Western culture and other dialectical cultures managed to put Earth in our current terrible situation. We call it, "one size fits all, group-thingk, status quo is the way to go, stux is crux, classical society." This is what CTMs do for us. Classicists call it "rational thinking." But now we see it is actually irrational classical nonsense: sacrifice of natural quantum individuals on an artificial analytic altar: an immutable ESQ EEMD altar. Boris Sidis calls it "herding."

Let's look at how Quantonics and quantum reality view those three major classical dogma:

  • ihndihvihdualings aræ b¤th apparæntly homogæne¤uhs while-amd abs¤lutæly heterogæne¤uhs,
(e.g., "ahll Æarth2 sæntiænts æmærgæ sharing æværywhere~n¤ncomteamp¤hrane¤uhs~mutating sihmihlarihties amd ¤mnihfferæncings")
(e.g., "b¤th sihmihlar sænsings while-amd ¤mnihfferænt, extra¤hrdinary amd ¤mnihværsal sænsings")
  • s¤cietyings aræ b¤th apparæntly homogæne¤uhs while-amd abs¤lutæly heterogæne¤uhs.
(e.g., "b¤th sihmihlar sharing ænsehmble culturings while-amd aut¤n¤m¤uhs ihndihvihdual l¤cal culturings")

 2Obvi¤uhsly, this expræsses an Æarth-chauvinistihc, limihted, vihew.

QELR ihn ¤ur table dæm¤nstratæs ¤mnihfferæncings am¤ng classical 'reality' amd quantum hlihty. A vibrant eample is classical 'society' vis-à-vis quantum s¤cietyings.

Where classical 'society' is ScA-SPoV, quantum s¤ciety issi SqQ -SP¤V.

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

See you here again in early April, 2004!


January, 2004 News:

Feuilleton 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!")

Oregon continues to hold her magic for us. We've been here since 1Jul2003, and Beth arrived 17Sep2003. We return to Indy near 1Apr2004 for a 3-6 month stay there.

About a week ago, Beth saw what looked like a Golden eagle near Newport. And within last week Doug saw a Bald eagle flying over our bay. Bald eagles are about three times heavier than Goldens. Slightly less than four kilos vis-à-vis slightly more than one kilo.

We may have mentioned in past news how we see more lenticular clouds in Oregon than we ever experienced anywhere else. Recently, Doug was taking Beth to Eugene for her flight to Florida to visit 'girl' friends there, and we both saw our first Eugene-area rainbows. Actually, there were multiple rainbows at once! Amazing! Too, those rainbows, some of them, formed tent-like triangular spires from ground to cloud level. Colors are so intense and vibrant! Some formed partial arcs across only part of sky and we saw combinations of these all at once!

Locally, while Beth was in Florida, Doug saw three seals in our river...all with their heads above water at same time! They are closer into our river chasing salmon and trout. It's extraordinary since we usually feel happy to see just one.

Weather is starting to warm up a bit. It's been sunny only about 25% of time during December-January. But temps at worst are low 40s and 50s during day time. Great for authoring and working on web sites. :)

Yeah, Doug's batchin' it again... And finally, after year-end work on Quantonics' site, got started on our quantum English language remediation (QELR) editor. Big part of work here is to develop a more comprehensive dictionary. Another big part is to provide dictionaries for multiple con(m)texts. We will have multiple quantum dictionaries providing a spectrum of minimal remediation to full remediation. We will support classical SOM and CR contexts too with separate dictionaries for those. Our goal is to allow any student of Quantonics to examine any page in Quantonics QELR'd in a variety of ways, e.g.: minimum-quantum, full-quantum, SOM, CR, etc.

To accomplish these tasks during 2004 and perhaps through 2005, Doug is learning Perl. Doug's first successful endeavor with Perl, a reusable prototype, takes all Quantonics HTML files and turns them into pure un-QELR'd files. A sort of QELR reverse engineering of all work in Quantonics since about 1998. Given that set of 'pure' HTML, any other con(m)text can be generated simply by running a Perl script on it and using an appropriate 'dictionary.' Ultimately, we want to make this a simple interactive process for students of Quantonics. If there is a piece of remediated text which you want to see unremediated you will be able to select said text and have it unremediated. Similarly, any text which is unremediated which you want to see remediated, just select it and have it remediated. Should be able to do that by year end 2004. To see what a fuller remediation looks like see our first effort on Coined Quantonics Terms. It offers an unremediated version link, too. We spent most of last two months getting to this point. As one result, this month's Feuilleton is shorter than usual.

This approach will also allow us to very easily show triple columns of side-by-side text showing MoQ, CR, and SOM examples. If you have trouble reading our QELR text, you can "go pure" and read it that way, then go CR and read it like that, finally go SOM. To improve your QELR capabilities, we will offer gradual increases in extents of QELR of any page you are browsing.

One challenge ahead is to learn how to run Perl and Unix scripts from within Cocoa. Another is porting selections to methods. Lots of work ahead.

Allow a segue into this month's installment of our feuilleton Chautauqua...

We mentioned "prototype."

That's a great place to do some examples of notions and memes of classical individual and social 'prototypes' and quantum ihndihvihdual amd s¤cial "pr¤t¤types."

Previously we have said that a major classical social problematic is viscosity. Classical social viscosity tends toward perpetuity, what we call "semper stux sux."

That problematic teaches classical individuals to believe in, theorize, and practice, "semper stux sux." Even so, classical individuals tend to be much less viscous than classical societies. Were it not for that, classical societies would make little progress, and what little progress they make is like pulling teeth and requires classical pioneers to make progress happen.

But what might happen if more quantum societies and individuals believed, "semper flux is crux?"

Our heuristics, at least for us, inspire comparative memes of classical prototypes vis-à-vis quantum prototypes:

Which are better: classical prototypes? quantum pr¤t¤types?

There is an easy way to assess this. If you could increase your intellect and creativity and productivity, would you? Why?

If you are a communist or extreme radical left-wing socialist (erlwhiz), you probably would say "No!" Why? You want everyone to have "common intelligence," etc. No one should be any better, smarter, more creative, more capable than any one else. Outcome? No master chess players, pianists, artists, physicists, mathematicians, linguists, teachers, sports teams, etc. Lowest 'common' denominator! You may call it "highest" if you wish. If we are all clones, high and low have no classically relativistic semantic. That is only one 'reason' why you will hear erlwhizes saying society would be better if we were like bee hives and ant colonies.

But most of us, in our deepest places of personal privacy, wish we were better than we are. At worst we want to be at least as good as 'the best.' But when we are all as good as 'the best,' then we are all alike and back to our radical socialist conspective.

No, really, we wish we could be better, without reservation on how much better. Most of us want to be smarter than those around us. Most of us are competitive in any sense of doing better work than those around us. We want to be better at survival. We want to be better at our chosen discipline so we can offer our families more than others 'have.' Of course, allowed to run its course in a classical context, this turns into greed and control and power and ultimately corruption.

But even if you understand all that, would you still increase your intellect, creativity, and productivity? We can hear you saying something like this, "If I could do that without becoming a greedy, power hungry and corrupt hegemonist, Yes!!!" We agree.

Let's assume we could do that without being in SOM and CR contexts. Let's assume we can do that when we believe, reason, and practice in quantum MoQ comtexts.

Then our answer to "Which are better: classical prototypes? quantum pr¤t¤types?" is "quantum pr¤t¤types." Indeed, all ¤f us will need vastly bættær bæliefs, ways ¤f think-king, amd m¤des ¤f w¤rk t¤ emersce quantum ihndihvihdual amd s¤cietal pr¤t¤types.

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

See you here again in early March, 2004!


December, 2003 News:

Feuilleton 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!")

"Being against anything is a classical act." Doug, in his review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light.

Ideal negation is a classical act! Classicists worship in a SOMland of negatives: "Can't, won't, don't, isn't, 'aint,' no, not, 'nope,' none, neither, nor, subtract, minus, negate, exclude, subtrahend, difference, divide, dividend, di-versity, etc. If it wasn't invented here, it doesn't 'exist.' Don't go, stop! Don't believe. That's wrong. That's bad. Status quo is the way to go. Stux is crux. 'Abysses of staysses is our bases.' Our way is the only way to go. You are either for us or against us. You better get on our page. Allow y-our society to guide you along our determined cultural yellow brick road. We are in control. You do as we say. Society has 'rule of law.' 'Laws is rules.' 'Rules is tools.' Society rules. 'Break a rule, get in trouble.' Anyone who does not agree with us is y-our enemy. You must hate y-our enemies and find ways to annihilate them. War is a great way to eliminate y-our enemies. Fundamentalists are idiots. Spiritualism is not objective. Mysticism is evil. Agnostics are anti-Christians. Atheists are Beelzebub. Christians are Satan. Non believers are infidels! Crusade! Muslims must die. Jihad! Kill Saddam! Quantum complementarity is 'subjective.' Quantum mechanics is incomplete."

Western cultures call it: scientific and rational "enlightenment" and Aquinasian "love of god."

What is educing all this rage?

Classical societies worship naïve realism's single-valued, predicable, either one or the other, everywhere excluded-middle dissociative, 1:1 correspondent negation! They revel in it, they wallow in it. They believe it and they thingk it.

Think about it... News, talk shows, print media, pundit analysis, religions, sports, movies, languages, corporations, unions, nations, states, cultures, societies, 'law,' and so on... Everywhere we go, it's there; negation is always classically there. All judgments are based on an either-or: that which we negate is bad, that which we affirm is good. To classicists 'reality' is a simple either-or schism: 'Reality' is opposites, and 'reality' is opposition. Classical solution? Another either-or opposition: peace, war.

All classical fundamentalists (believe they) can assess absolute, ideally di-chotomous, right or wrong using 'ideal' naïve classical negation. Actually, all classical-dialectical fundamentalists do assess their 'reality' that way. Why? How? "Society, culture, family, friends, institutions, science, religion, and academia have taught (and still teach) us that negation is ideally objective and thus valid means of genuine assessment." 'Enlightened science' worships at an alter of 'ideal,' objective classical negation. And it attempts to defame, dishonor, and scandalize all who do not. Religions too! Et al.

From whence all this negative worship? This negative energy? This hatred?


"Excessive aggression, competition, and destructive behavior are predominant
only in the human species and have to be dealt with in terms of cultural values
rather than being 'explained' pseudoscientifically as inherent natural phenomena."

Fritjof Capra
in his
The Turning Point
p. 280 of 465 total including
'About the Author,' Bantam, 1983.

His exemplar reference to 'pseudoscientific explanation' is one of "social Darwinism."
Latter in Quantonics' view is a great example of Darwinist evolution trapped in an innately anti-ecological SOM 'paradigm.'
But then quantum 'ecosystems' are biononlogical.
Quantons are bionons.

SOM has to be carefully taught. SOM is learned behavior. SOM is unnatural-unphysial behavior.
After nearly three millennia of academic, religious, and cultural, pedagogic and dogmatic pedantry,
SOM is pandemic in Western culture and becoming so in some Eastern cultures.
Thankfully, SOM is approaching Dutch tulip craze proportions.


SOM's either-or schism!

SOM is about opposition. SOM is about versus. SOM is about hatred borne on ideal classical dialectical-prosodic 'enlightened' pyrrhonism-by-negation: a classical 'scientific' deign of feign. Why? Classicists fear differences and change. Why? Classicists have deluded themselves that reality is stable and objects in reality are independent of one another (Bergson's avatars.). To classicists change and concomitant di-fferences mediate uncertainty and insecurity, and classicists want none of either. Remember: classicists want to control all, including nature. If nature has free will, one may not control nature and nature becomes one's enemy...from any classical conspective.

From whence this hatred?

Over 2500 Years of SOM's Supposed-Ideal Negational Notions!
(E.g., radical mechanism, radical finalism, radical materialism, radical objectivism...)

What can we do about it? We can self-evolve! We can commence a Millennium III effort of massive societal and cultural change, a from-to, if you will.

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.

©Quantonics, Inc. 2003-2021



Classical Individualism
From I-SPoVs
Note: classical negation is ideally objective

Quantum Ihndihvihdualism
To I-SP¤Vs
Note: quantum negati¤n issi subjective-hermeneutic

Classical Socialism
~Where Western Culture Is: S-SPoVs
Note: classical negation is ideally objective

Quantum S¤cialism
~Where Western Culture Could Be: S-SP¤Vs
Note: quantum negati¤n issi subjective-hermeneutic
  • Quantonics classical negation anihmus:
    • I-SPoVs learn classical negation CTMs
    • I-SPoVs study classical negation theories
    • I-SPoVs practice classical negation theories
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical I-SPoV negation:
    • "is logical"
    Negation of A is -A
    Negation of -A is A
    Negation of you is -you

    Begs many unanswered questions, e.g.,

    1. When is A A?
    2. Where is A A?
    3. When are you you?
    4. Where are you you?

    • "is objective"
    Deludes objective independence
    Deludes objective staticity-stability

    • "is definite (define-it; immute it; 'stux is crux')"
    • "is judicious"
    Supports analytic placement of blame
    Prescribes and metes against 'failure'

  • Quantonics quantum negati¤n anihmus:
    • I-SP¤Vs learn quantum negati¤n QTMs
    • I-SP¤Vs study quantum negati¤n memetics
    • I-SP¤Vs intuit quantum negati¤n memetics
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum I-SP¤V negati¤n:
    • "issi paralogical, pragmalogical,
    heteropragmalogical, sophist, rhetorical, qualitative, affective, etc."
    Negati¤n ¤f A issi subjectihve, qualihtatihve
    Negati¤n ¤f -A issi subjectihve, qualihtatihve

    Negati¤n ¤f y¤u issi mihnus y¤u:

    • tiger issi n¤t y¤u (y¤u aræ a quanton!)
    • mæ issi n¤t y¤u
    • y¤u 1 sec¤nd fr¤m n¤w issi n¤t y¤u (assuming y¤ur comtext partihally affects wh¤ y¤u aræ, just due Earth's m¤ti¤n al¤ne, y¤u aræ 30km away fr¤m y¤ur l¤cus 1 sec¤nd ag¤)
    • m¤¤n issi n¤t y¤u
    • multihverses aræ n¤t y¤u
    • shall wæ ævær 'classically affirm' y¤u issi n¤t?
    • etc.
    Negati¤n ¤f any quanton assumes ihts quantum ihncluded-mihddle with ihts actual amd n¤nactual real quantum c¤mplements

    S¤lves many previ¤usly umanswered questi¤ns, e.g.,

    1. A issi n¤t A after any Planck m¤hment
    2. A's l¤cus issi arbihtrary due ubihquiht¤us Planck flux
    3. Y¤u aræ n¤t y¤u after any Planck m¤hment
    4. Y¤ur l¤cus issi arbihtrary due ubihquiht¤us Planck flux

    • ''issi subjecti
    • "issi quantum umcærtain"
    • "issi quantum ji
    hudihcihous" (sææ jihudgment)
  • Quantonics classical negation anihmus:
    • S-SPoVs nourish classical negation CTMs
    • S-SPoVs teach classical negation concepts
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical S-SPoV negation:
    • "is logical"
    Social laws assess legal oppositive EOOO
    dichons(innocence, guilt)
    Social mores assess oppositive EOOO
    dichons(moral, immoral),
    dichons(moral, amoral)
    Social principles assess oppositive EOOO
    dichons(ethical, unethical)

    Classical S-SPoV negational logic is a logic of power mongers, a logic of acquisitors and inquisitors, a logic of material objectivists. A logic of few (sometimes 'one') controlling many.

    • "is objective"
    Society teaches and adheres S-SPoVs as objectively independent
    Society teaches and adheres S-SPoVs as objectively state-ic and stabile

    • "is definite (define-it; immute it; 'stux is crux')"
    Society teaches (theory) and adheres (practice) that its S-SPoVs are stable and independent
    Stable S-SPoVs are inflexible and grow in their consensual "status quo is the way to go" inflexibilities; definiteness evokes not stability, rather disintegration-extinction
    S-SPoV 'definition' impedes societal evolution—this is a 'definition' of classical society: in its ideal 'form,' society incapable of change, incapable of élan.
    • "is judicious"
    Society teaches and adheres analytic placement of blame based upon ideal classical negational EOOO concepts and formalisms
    Society teaches and adheres its laws which can mete punishment consistently and fairly
    Society teaches and adheres its laws as absolute verities (expects constituents to believe this); e.g., a notion of a supreme court as legally omnicient

  • Quantonics quantum negati¤n anihmus:
    • S-SP¤Vs
    • S-SP¤Vs
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum S-SP¤V negati¤n:
    • "issi paralogical, pragmalogical,
    heteropragmalogical, sophist, rhetorical, qualitative, affective, etc."
    S¤cial jihudgments c¤mpare ihndihvihdual pattern c¤mplementary BAWAM
    quantons(bætter,'better') (i.e., to classical 'better')
    S¤cial jihudgments c¤mpare ihndihvihdual pattern c¤mplementary BAWAM
    S¤cial jihudgments c¤mpare ihndihvihdual pattern c¤mplementary BAWAM

    Quantum S-SP¤V c¤mparis¤ns aræ hermeneutics ¤f quantum ihndihvihduals tentatively acting ihn c¤herent amd virhtual gr¤ups t¤ s¤lve quantum s¤cietal issues ¤n bæhalf ¤f islandic l¤cal quantum culture: many s¤lit¤nic ihndihvihduals tentatively comcurring am¤ng many ihndihvihduals. S¤ciety ¤f ihndihvihduals by ihndihvihduals f¤r ihndihvihduals.

    • ''issi subjecti
    Islands of individuals Value S-SPoVs as affectational, animate, EIMA, JIT QTP-QVP-with-auto-sunset emerqant ontologies
    Islands of individuals Value S-SPoVs as qualitatively animate and emerscitectural EIMA

    • "issi quantum umcærtain"
    Societies of individuals Value S-SPoVs which offer low latency ensemble mutability
    Societies of individuals Value S-SPoVs which are flexible and emerge in their consensual "flux is crux" as physial ESS agency
    Societies of individuals Value S-SPoVs which assist quantal societal evolution—evolution toward better—toward élan.

    • "issi quantum ji
    hudihcihous" (sææ jihudgment)
    (this is a quantum quasi biological modeling example)

    Ihndihvihduals Value I-SP¤Vs which use antis¤ci¤tics t¤ mitigate s¤cietal ¤ffenses against ihndihvihduals

    A bætter example ¤f s¤cietal ¤ffense against ihndihvihduals issi unmitigated S-SP¤V pærpætuati¤n. S-SP¤Vs ihnure ihnnate S-SP¤V ap¤pt¤sis sunset features

    S-SP¤Vs ihnure virtual JIT QTP self-ihnstantiati¤n

    C¤nstituent S-SP¤Vs' ihndihvihduals ihnure virtual QTP S-SP¤V self-ihnclusi¤n

    Any S-SP¤V may bæ terminated via massive c¤nc¤rdant I-SP¤V ihnitiatives

    Ihndihvihduals Value S-SP¤Vs which use antis¤ci¤tics t¤ mitigate s¤cietal ¤ffenses against s¤cieties

    A bætter example here issi USA's war against Iraq

    S¤cieties ¤f ihndihvihduals Value S-SP¤Vs which use antint¤tics t¤ mitigate ihndihvihdual ¤ffenses against ihndihvihduals

    S¤cieties ¤f ihndihvihduals Value S-SP¤Vs which nurture memes ¤f b¤th ihndihvihdual amd s¤cietal respect


    I.e., Pirsigean balance — which is a Pattern of Value in itself and thus in itself in quantonic interrelationships with its environment and thus — issi QTP and emergent so we should say "balancings."

    End aside.

    with greater emphases ¤n acceptance ¤f wide spectral ihndihvihdual extra¤rdinary sense ihnitiatives (ihndihvihdual(s) as ihntrinsically m¤re highly ev¤lving amd ab¤ve m¤re visc¤us amd pastistic s¤ciety)

    S¤cieties ¤f ihndihvihduals Value S-SP¤Vs which view 'classical laws' as means ¤f creating criminals; rather Value ihnn¤vative quantum ihntras¤cietal 'l¤cks' which keep ¤ffending ihndihvihduals visibly c¤-within s¤ciety. G¤al: retenti¤n ¤f m¤dicum ihndihvihdual free will, with respectful amd restrained selective amd tentative ihntras¤cietal mitigati¤n ¤f any ¤ffending ihndihvihdual free will with¤ut creating uni¤nized establishments ¤f ¤ffenders. Who decides when t¤ mitigate an ihndihvihdual's free will? L¤cal islandic s¤ciety acc¤rding entirely l¤cal ad h¤c ihndihvihdual Values. Value meme l¤cality emerges-ihmmerges amd gr¤ws-diminishes with ¤ffender visibility amd affectati¤n amd s¤cietal-learning-affectati¤n.

    S¤cieties ¤f ihndihvihduals view ¤ffender mitigati¤n memes as ev¤luti¤nary amd capable ¤f ihmmediate adaptati¤n t¤ changing ¤ffender bæhavi¤rs.


    S¤cieties ¤f ihndihvihduals Value S-SP¤Vs which use antint¤tics t¤ mitigate ihndihvihdual ¤ffenses against s¤cieties

    A bætter example ¤f ihndihvihdual ¤ffenses against a s¤ciety issi Usama bin Laden against 'Satan' USA

  • Quantonics exegeses - classical I-SPoV negation:
    • "offers ideal discrimination"
    AisA: identity
    AisAorAisnotA: discrimination
    AisnotbothAandnotA: excluded-middle

    Above are Aristotle's three ideal 'laws' of classical discrimination: sillygisms

    We can identify you, discriminate you, and exclude you; 'criminate' means to 'incriminate' EOOO criminal vs not criminal; one is either a criminal or one is classically negationally not a criminal
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum I-SP¤V negati¤n:
    • "¤ffers quantum ani
    hmatæ EIMA c¤mplementary ¤mniscriminati¤n"
    A is b¤th A and n¤t A: ihncluded-mihddle

    Ab¤ve issi Renselle's quanton ¤f quantum ihncluded-mihddle first pr¤ffered ihn Doug's Quantum Connection paper

    Acr¤ss all ¤mniversals wæ aræ all:
    b¤th n¤nidentifiable amd ihdentifiable
    b¤th n¤ndiscriminable amd discriminable
    b¤th ihncludable amd islandic-excludable

    Wæ aræ all ¤mniscrimnable.
    Wæ aræ all ¤mniscrimnablings!
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical S-SPoV negation:
    • "offers ideal discrimination"
    Society teaches (theory) and adheres (practice) classical legal, moral and ethical principles which claim society and humans in society can ideally discriminate negational EOOO: good vs bad, right vs wrong, black vs white, up vs down, etc.
    Society assesses people as ideally evil
    Society assesses people as ideally guilty
    Society assesses people as ideally Satanic
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum S-SP¤V negati¤n:
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical I-SPoV negation:
    • "is mathematical"
    Deludes dogmatic consistency

    • A's -A is always -A
    • A's -A is everywhere -A
    Deludes general verifiability

    • A's -A is everyH5W -A in all Platonic sentience; all sentience must be Platonic
    Deludes proof

    • Absence of negation-contradiction 'proves' any theorem everywhere
    • Negation-contradiction of any axiom 'disproves' its theorem everywhere
    • Mathematical proof induces locality to nonlocality; locality to globality
    Deludes accretion of static knowledge
    Deludes Platonic 'discoverability'

    • pre-existent forms
    Deludes monocontextuality
    Deludes independence, context freeness
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum I-SP¤V negati¤n:
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical S-SPoV negation:
    • "is mathematical"
    Society teaches (theory) and adheres (practice) classical mathematical principles
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum S-SP¤V negati¤n:
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical I-SPoV negation:
    • "is common sense" (dichon(society, I-SPoV))
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum I-SP¤V negati¤n:
    • "issi extraordinary sense" (quanton(c¤
    Quantum ihndihvihduals bælieve extraunihty issi quantum c¤herent extra¤rdinary sense"
    I-SP¤V e[traunity issi islandic-l¤cal
    Quantum ihndihvihduals aræ islandic-l¤cal
    Quantum ihndihvihduals aræ s¤cieties of islandic-l¤cal ihndihvihduals, e.g., any creature issi a s¤ciety ¤f ¤rgans æach ¤f which aræ s¤cieties ¤f cells amd s¤ ¤n...
    Quantum ihndihvihdual c¤heres extraunity
    I-SP¤V e[traunihty practice ¤btains free will
    I-SP¤V free will issi islandic-local
    I-SP¤V e[traunities fit all quantum s¤cieties

    What do we mean by extraunihty? Our simplest meme is Mae-wan Ho's "quantum coherence with quantum individual autonomy." However, we offer a fuller perspective at our Ensemble Quantum Interrelationships page where you may allow your quantum stages to dwell and deeply quantum role play our "Quantum Adept Descriptors" just below top of page's graphics.

    Quantum i
    hndihvihduals aræ all unique amd respect ¤ne an¤thers' uniquenesses amd ihndihvihdual free wills.

    Quantum i
    hndihvihduals emersce pr¤wess ihn mixturings ¤f all p¤tentia. S¤me aræ ihntellectual. Others aræ athletic, artihstic, p¤litical, em¤tive, aesthetic, p¤etic, amd quantum scientific ihncluding quantum-: -awaræness, -anihmacy, -subjectihvity, -s¤phism, -affectati¤n, -EIMA, -gænætics, -AI, -SONs, -c¤mputing, -bi¤l¤gy, -mathings, -n¤nmechanics, -physialistics, -qualihtative studies, -¤nt¤l¤gy, -c¤sm¤l¤gy, -aer¤dynamics, -medihcine, -anthr¤p¤l¤gy, -psych¤l¤gy, -s¤ci¤l¤gy, -ethn¤l¤gy, -metr¤l¤gy, -phil¤s¤phy, -metaphysialics, -spirihtuality, amd s¤ ¤ unending list ¤f quantum aræas ¤f study amd standingsunder.

    Quantum individuals have moral and intellectual dominion over quantum society and view society only as a respected servant of individuals to assist in processing problems which require groups of individuals and are beyond capability of process at an individual level.

    We are saying that we need quantum society, but any society is problematic whenever it insists upon its own perpetuation. Our view is that quantal societies, whose 'lives' ebb and flow like individuals, are better than perpetual societies.

    Quantum individuals emerq tentative groups only, and any group's apoptosis and catabolisis are implicitly innate.

    Quantum individuals assiduously monitor all social groups for scheduled task completion and executancy of apoptosis and catabolisis.
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical S-SPoV negation:
    • "is common sense" (dichons(society, I-SPoV))
    Society inures community as consensus AKA "common sense" ("normal sense")
    Societal consensus becomes Demos will
    Societal consensus drives out free will
    One "common sense" fits all constituents

    Classical society's common sense says that group hegemony and minority leadership control individual behavior. This is what drives out individual free will.

    Democracy as majority rule is antithetical global individual free will. It enforces adoption of one global culture and one global belief system. ("You are either for us or against us.") Democracy begins as a social pluralistic ideation and constrains as hegemonous totalitarian consensual monism. Group will over individual will.

    Democracy is social consensus as hegemony! To make it even worse, democracy employs a few to dictate 'law' (majority opinion AKA "common sense") to many. Democracy always abuses someones' individual rights. Democracy worships group, herd and society.

    Democracy claims "the will of the people" is classically homogeneous — a monistic Demos will. Latter is impossible except when ostensibly conceived as majority concord: common sense by majority. Wills of people are heterogeneous. To call them homogeneous is just another classical deign to feign.

    Demo-bureau-cracy is a method (CTM) of enforcing social 'laws' while denigrating individuals as beneath "the group."
  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum S-SP¤V negati¤n:
    • "issi extraordinary sense" (quantons(c¤
    S-SP¤Vs teach amd hermeneutically bælieve s¤ciety issi c¤herent e[traunihty (i.e., extraordinary sense unihty)
    Quantum s¤ciety teaches amd hermeneutically bælieves extraunihty issi quantum c¤herent extra¤rdinary sense"
    S-SP¤V extraunihty issi islandic-l¤cal
    Quantum s¤cieties aræ islandic-l¤cal
    S-SP¤V extraunihty theory ¤btains free will
    Quantum free will issi islandic-local
    Many extraunihties fit all quantum s¤cieties

    Quantum extra¤rdinary sense exercises ihts free will m¤stly with¤ut fear ¤f c¤nsequences fr¤m quantum s¤ciety.

    Quantum e
    xtra¤rdinary sense amd ihts free will aræ always comtextually umcærtain, th¤ugh. Quantum free will issi l¤cally maximal c¤within fewer amd smaller comtexts. N¤w wæ can standunder why quantum s¤cieties emphasize ihndihvihdualism ihn ¤rder t¤ maximize ihndihvihdual freed¤m amd free will.

    Quantum S-SP¤Vs deny any 'classical S-SPoV social-group-herd consensus' ¤ffering any c¤mpatibility wit
    h Mae-wan Hoesque gl¤bal, quantum c¤herent, ihndihvihdual free will.

    Wæ call t
    hat "extraordinary sense."
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical I-SPoV negation:
    • "is ideally oppositive"
    Evokes and educes EOOO
    Engenders hatred of "outsiders"
    Provides means of ideal discrimination
    • "provides ideal falsification"
    • "offers a means of provisional proof"
    • "requires an Aristotelian excluded-middle"


  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum I-SP¤V negati¤n:
  • Quantonics exegeses - classical S-SPoV negation:
    • "is ideally oppositive"
    Society uses dichons to architect, design, build and control groups and herds
    Society teaches and adheres 1-1 objective correspondence of opposites
    Society teaches and adheres ideal objective negation as "effective cause" of logical opposition

    • "provides ideal falsification"
    Society uses dichons to determine absolute verity and falsity
    Society adheres OGT in OGC
    • "offers a means of provisional proof"
    Society uses radical mechanism to validate legal, moral, and ethical codes of conduct
    One set of codes fits all societies
    • "requires an Aristotelian excluded-middle"
    Societies' predicate logical middles and unique interpretation of objects, properties, language, laws, people, etc. are "exclusive"
    "Nations have exclusive boundaries"
    "Cultures have exclusive boundaries"

  • Quantonics exegeses - quantum S-SP¤V negati¤n:

Our table, as are our other tables in prior feuilleton installments, remains in process... What it offers you is some foundation for your own thinking about classical negation vis-à-vis quantum negati¤n as they relate to classical individuals and societies vis-à-vis quantum ihndihvihduals amd s¤cieties.

What we want to accomplish here is establishing your own intellectual comfort and ease in moving among and discussing any semantic metaphor-meme across those four comtexts: I-SPoVs, S-SPoVs, I-SP¤Vs, and S-SP¤Vs. Also, we want to be capable of applying these four comtexts appropriately-comtextually among those five major comtextual evolutionary steps which we introduced in our first feuilleton installment. Recall them via their mnemonics: ABSI, SIAB, SIBA, ISBA, IhSBA. Say them until they stick, "absee, seeab, seeba, ezba, ezhba." Note their sequence of sub-pattern reversals. Now take this installment's semantic of 'negation' and ponder-assay it in each of those evolutionary comtexts.

"Being for and with a quantum commingling, emerging, ascending reality is a 'class' act." Doug, in his review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light.

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

See you here again in early February, 2004!


Notes -

-1 - Fascism: "Although fascist parties and movements differ[] significantly [among] each other, they [have] many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."

Fascists, in general, tend to be anti-: Marxists, democracy, liberalism, feminism, urbanism, decadence ("...morally justified struggle against 'decadence.'"), etc.

Fascists, in general, tend to be pro-: Christian [and Muslim], racism [e.g., Islam and anti Semitism; Catholics and blacks; Christians and gays; etc.] German, totalitarian, leadership (individual 'representing' society), violence, revolution, nationalism, populism, spiritualism (i.e., anti-decadence), etc.

Quotes and ref. material from Encyclopedia Britannica 2003. Our brackets.

What do we notice that fascism definitely has in common with classical conservatism and liberal socialism? All share an underlying reasoning method dependency on dialectic! All are always either anti- or pro- some sub-sets of naïve classical notions. Also notice that, by classical definition, republicanism shares fascism's contempt for "electoral democracy and cultural liberalism."

Recall Hitler, "people make the state" and Mussolini, "state makes its people." Recall Bush, "You're either for us or against us," and "There is no middle ground, there is no and shall be no neutrality." Bush is a fascist! He is inconsistent at it though. He has (appears to have, perhaps pretends to have) learned not to discriminate religion and race, but he still dialectically discriminates sexuality! More Christian fascism! Too, Bush turns democracy into a fascist dialectic: majority wins, minority loses; majority is right, minority is wrong. More Christian fascism!

Doug says, "Individuals co~with~in nature and in co~agency~with nature fecu(n)modulate their quantons(nature,self), while co~respect mediates omniffering betterings." ('fec' is roughly Latin make while 'undulate' is roughly Latin waves).

Allow Doug to offer a tentative Static Pattern of Value latching: "Specificity, as does genericity, carries countless classical burdens of metaphysical and philosophical thought, however in Doug's quantum hermeneutical perspectives fascism is dialectical and dialectic can be fascist." One of our best classical examples here is that infamous Dimbaughlb: Its dialectic is both specifically fascist and more generally democratic. It is quantum real regardless its distaste for and hatred of quantum rhetorical sophism. More deeply and 'fundamentally' it claims and adheres a republican federalism, which on its face, is anti quantum and nearly pure dialectical fascism. It says "republican federalism is a beautiful thing." Eyes of beholders...

Minor updates to this note, by Doug, on 20Mar2004, mostly in response to Bush's nationally televised Christian fascist speech in Florida on 20Mar2004 and our: "fascism is dialectical." Original note from 10-29Feb2004 News efforts.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2021 — Rev. 29Apr2010  PDR — Created 6Dec2003  PDR
(5Jan2004 rev - Fix MT-Extra h's.)
(10Jan2004 rev - Extend our December feuilleton table's quantum I-SP¤V 'extraordinary sense' cell. Repair some typos.)
(10-29Feb2004 rev - Prepare Feb News and account for quantum tells in comtemporaneous US society.)
(11-21Mar2004 rev - April News, early. Refinements of draft effort. March News published 22Mar2004.)
(25Mar2004 rev - Extend MoQ Valuation column of March's Bases of Judgment table.)
(17-18Apr2004 rev - April News, early. Typos, grammar.)
(25-30May2004 rev - May News.)
(1-30Jun2004 rev - June News.)
(4Jul2004 rev - Add Möbius to Tao to Möbius transmutation graphic link to Schrödinger's hydrogen atom sophism graphic. Add relevant link to our Möbius Left page.)
(24Aug2004 rev - Add 'fermionta' link to fuzzons emerse a quark.)
(4-5Sep2004 rev - August News.)
(21Oct2004 rev - Add anchor to J S Mill quote in April News.)
(31Oct2004 rev - October News.)
(27Nov2004 rev - November News.)
(1Dec2004 rev - Finish November News prep.)
(8Jan2005 rev - Add Maxwell and Bohr to our November 'old way thingking' vav 'new way thinking' list.)
(3-4Feb2005 rev - Change 'protocurs[e]r' to 'protocursor.' Repair copyright dates on Bases of Judgment table.)
(8Jun2005 rev - Repair 123.gif and 123.aiff links. Add fuzzon to fermion ontology link under QCD in June, 2004 News.)
(1,2Jul2005 rev - Add Iolanthe anchor under October News. Correct name of opera from Iolanthe to The Snow Maiden.)
(11Dec2005 rev - Add 'qubit' link under September, 2004 TQS News.)
(20Jul2006 rev - Repair a minor punctuation error. Change 'protocurs[e]r' to 'protocursor.' Massive respell.)
(8Oct2006 rev - Adjust color. Remove email contact.)
(31Jan2007 rev - Add 'USA is Bankrupt' anchor.)
(16,30Jul2007 rev - Some reformating. Add 'Classical Tell of Many Comtexts' on answer 16 to Google Test.)
(19Oct2007 rev - Spell. Add 'Unix Novice' anchor to Doug's answer to Google Test question 5.)
(7Dec2007 rev - Fix a ' to to ' by changing it to ' to .')
(12Jul2008 rev - Reformat page.)
(22Oct2008 rev - Convert all Wingdings and Symbols fonts to gifs.)
(7Apr2009 rev - Add 'Classical vav Quantum Putatives' anchor to section comparing them.)
(29Apr2010 rev - Add 'Genuine Value' anchor and relevant paragraph bold green highlights.)