This is our June, 2006 editorial.
Go directly to 2006 June News
Just a heads up: Friday 13, October, 2006 is anniversary 699 of Pope Clement V and French King Philippe IV's commencement of their intent and partial success at destroying The Knights Templar.
As now, catholic dogma, and dialectical pedantry, then (early 14th century) sought hegemony and wealth via deceit and lies.
Interestingly Philippe and Clement called the
Templars "queers" as part of their justification to
destroy them. Curious, eh? Templars worshiped the sacred
feminine, especially Magdalen AKA Venus of Light!
Philippe was broke and needed their wealth. Clement was corrupt and feared their allegiances to a Patriarchy of Constantinople.
Most of what is recorded history of Knights Templar today is lies and deceit implanted by catholicism and its 'friends.'
On October 13, 1307 'Friday' of 13 would thenceforth always be a black Friday, a sort of 14th century 911. If the catholic church could get away with such terrorism today, so that it could have its OSFA 'universal' way, it would. Believe that!
Notice how closely Usama's thing-king now is to Clement V's then.
It is of historical significance that Templars considered Mohammedans their worst enemies. Mohammed of course is Allah's, Islam's, Jesuit counterpart. One area of study which we hope to undertake in a few years is to fathom Islam's and Mohammed's gnostic roots (routes). Essene Jesus was gnostic! Was Mohammed gnostic? Hmmm...
(Our use of lower case 'catholic' is intentional. Said word means 'universal,' OSFA. It is an anti quantum word in that catholicism is dogmatic, and doctrinaire. Catholicism as a religion hates choice and it hates gnostic individuals who heretically think what they individually learn individually on their own. Be keenly aware that Jesus was a gnostic and taught his apostles and disciples to "find God in their selves, as individuals." That is about as anti catholic as one can be.
As Mel Gibson says, though, "Ex cathedra, if you aren't a 'catholic' you are going to hell." Mel demonstrates well, and by vivid exemplar, how catholics are semper fidel ca [ta] stro phi truepers! )
References for above material include: Thomas and Philip Gospels, David Woods' Genisis - 'The First Book of Revelations,' Elaine Pagels' opus, Frances A. Yates (limited; e.g., her references to classical texts describing Templars as "evil gnostics," etc.), Rabelais' Opus, illustrated, Volumes I and II, an article by Daniel C. Dennett in a 2006 issue of The Chronicle - Review, etc.
See Quantonics' Classical vis-à-vis Quantum Recommended Religious Reading page which shows Gibson quote reference (near page bottom) by Daniel C. Dennett.
Doug - 24May2006.
In Quantonics we avoid worship and abide bettership.
Doug - 25May2006.
Frances Yates writes of Picatrix in a way which for us partially desnouers what we intend here:
"The Picatrix opens with pious prayers and promises to reveal profound secrets. For knowledge is the best gift of God to man, to know what is the root and principle of all things. The primal truth is not a body, but it is One, One Truth, One Unity. All things come from it and through it receive truth and unity in the perpetual movement of generation and corruption. There is a hierarchy in things, and lower things are raised to higher things; and higher things descend to lower things. Man is a little world reflecting the great world of the cosmos, but through his intellect the wise man can raise himself above the seven heavens." For our color code guidance see our Bergson's Time and Free Will Translator Preface Page v.
Page 51, Giordano Bruno, by Frances A. Yates, CHUP, 1964 (1st ed.), 1991 paperback.
Compare that to 'catholic' dogma:
Notice how ancient gnostic Picatrix is closer to quantum than that dialectical catholic dogma.
Compare 'catholic' dogma with our quantum hermeneutic of that Yates Picatrix quote:
Latter is quantum, former is hopelessly and anachronistically classical.
But...check this out! This is what Picatrix has to say about those two triples, this is Picatrix' triple:
Intellect or mens [Latin: mind]
Finally, let's compare those three to SOM:
Object (material canonic dialectical reality)
Doug takes Picatrix' use of 'One' as a quantum memeo of superpositional coherence which our Godhead graphic near page top depicts almost eidetically as hermaphroditic coherent superposition of male (23 XY chromosome pairs) and female (23 XX chromosome pairs). Another more practical and more real recent example is quantum twin personalities due quantum comjugal coherence after physical fetal-twin reunification discussed by Larry Dossey and Jill Neimark in a 1980s-90s Psychology Today article (Twins?). Twin fetuses quantumly reunify, but that female's personality is two females in a single quantum~reunified body! Dossey's view could offer one explanation of how pure human hermaphrodites are 'created.' But interestingly offers potentia for quantum_fermaphrodicity quanton(XX...XX,XX_XX).
(Anne Fausto Sterling may have used 'ferm' first
in her The Five Sexes
Students should note that catholics tried their best to destroy gnostic works like Picatrix. Too they view male, female as an ideal dichon(female, male) an ideal EOOO classical excluded-middle: doctrine disallows any memes, let alone any memes of quantum~included~middle. Quantumly, sexuality is, like all reality, a Quantum Likelihood Omnistribution, QLO.
Etymology of Picatrix is interesting. Rabelais' opus has been translated and reprinted many times. Our search for more on Picatrix led us to Yates and that page ref. above refers Rabelais on 'Picatris.' Our version of Rabelais' opus, Pantagruel III, 23, has Picarris (I.e., "At the time when I was a Student in the University of To[u]louse, that same reverend Father in the Devil, Picarris, Rector of the Diabological [catholic devil's] Faculty, was wont to tell us, that the Devils did naturally fear the bright glancing of Swords, as much as the Splendour and Light of the Sun." Our bold red and brackets. As you can read, Rabelais holds, similarly Voltaire, catholics and catholicism in humourously low esteem. Our brackets on Rabelais' intentionally humourous 'To-louse.' Rabelais is a genius at shafting humor! Yates' use of 'shaft.').
Fabulously, we found our Venus graphic (near this page top) on cover of our copy of Rabelais' Opus.
Doug - 25-26May2006
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, our Marines (our best, our very best) wouldn't have to do what they did in Haditha.
Can you imagine how many individual terrorists we could have killed one at a time with $1 Trillion?
Bush is an idiot! Cheney is an idiot! Dumbsfield is an idiot!
All three, we hate thee, go to Hell!
But Hillary would have done NOTHING! Bleeding heart lieberals DO NOTHING!
Notice how skaggo is trying to appear as a hawk...
Belinda, Oh! Belinda he wants you so...
"There were 11 in the shed and the little one said, 'Bend over!'"
Doug - 27May2006.
Again, Republican't politicians: "Go to Hell!"
Doug - 27May2006.
December, 2005 through November, 2006
|JAN||FEB||MAR||APR||MAY||JUN||JUL||AUG||SEP||OCT OCT SE||NOV||DEC|
You are here:
|Google in China,
What is Wrong with Democracy,
Why Digital is Dead,
Gnosticism vis-à-vis Pirsig & Bergson
|Scott C. Smith,
IBM's High GHz PPCs,
|Doug Critiques Sull's
|Doug on novel
|What will happen in
The Da Vinci Code...
Doug's view of
|Free energy!||High Speed Internet,
DMD's Quantum Simplicity,
Classical Sentences, vav
Quantonics Top 20 Pages,
Why Static Truth is Irrelevant
Didactism & autodidactism,
Doug's iPod video
June, 2006 News
On ... Doug's view of what is about to happen in mid-term elections...
As regular readers grasp, Doug is not very good at predicting election outcomes. We figured Bush over Gore well, but we flubbed Kerry over Bush. We're at 50%.
Doug believes that both Democrats and Republicans as we have been experiencing them are "old school." Even new folk like Ford and Barack Obama preach "machine dogma."
What does Doug mean by "machine dogma?" We intend an inertial social system.
Let's just say it very simply: Americans, especially USA folk are not machines. Nor are they cogs in any machine(s). Trouble is...that is how they are treated by both Democracked and Republican't politicos. News media too!
No single USA individual represents what politicos and news pundits and blab-show hosts call "the people," "civilians," "the public," "the village," etc.
No single USA individual fits any of those polls we see held in high acclaim by newsperts.
We can go on and on and on here...
So, we just do not know what will happen in November, do we? We cannot know what will happen in November, can we?
What can we do? Quantumly we can expect an ensemble of likelihood omnistributionings.
One of those QLOs is experiencing a major, major, millennial, epochal change as we enter this mid-term season. How can we describe that immense change most simply? USA individuals are in their ascension!
What complements that epochal change? USA "old school," classical societies are in their descension.
"Quantum school" politicians are younger ones who get that.
What will "quantum school" politicians believe? Let's make a list:
What will "quantum school" politicians discredit? Let's make a list:
We are, during Millennium III, experiencing a massive change in Western culture.
Bumpy Chautauquas ahead...
On ... Doug's view of Ron Howard's Movie The Da Vinci Code...
Outstanding, entangling, enlightening, quantum~believings...
On 19May2006 Bethahavah and Doug went to see this one together. Both of us read Dan Brown's Demons and Angels and Da Vinci Code illustrated texts. Doug in that order and Bethahavah in 'reverse' order. Howard's work seldom disappoints. Prior to seeing this movie B&D both thought Hanks would be a poor choice, but Tom surprised us: he was really good in our opinions. For us, all Brown's characters fit...extraordinarily well. Sophie Neveu (i.e., wisdom eveN u can understand...) was played superbly by that gorgeous cherub from Amelie, Audrey Tautou (aud rey tauto u; sound with same u can hear its repetition; notice that Neveu and Tautou both 'coincidentally' end in 'u' -- and further notice how Sophia (wisdom of the logos and the logos is flux) and Audrey Tautou (repeating sound of audio flux) are quantum wavic!). Personally, Doug hadn't fathomed how subtly entrenched was a requirement for French language spoken genuinely-evoking Brown's multicultrual hues rippling compelling phantasiac flavors like green threads of tastymental goodness in roquefort cheese. Oh! For some movie duals of Feynman's black threads embedded in collodion.
Theater we were in was pushing Sony. Graphics were just amazing. Have you seen Sony's version of Quantonics' Hotmeme "Waving Bricks from SOM's Wall?" Hotmeme Remarkable! Really!! Be interesting to know if that's what their art department intended, and if they thought of it on their own...???
Movie's ending is actually better than book's ending which was, in Doug's opinion, book's only weak spot.
If we had a choice we would have gone with Demons and Angels for a Dan Brown movie. Book was better than DVC except for issues of Magdelen and 'the Merovingian vine.'
Hope you subscribe to FT! Their 20/21 May, 2006 issue page W9 has a great pix from movie looking down on Langdon and Neveu in that old Rosslyn (Rose Line) church basement where they found Magdelen's tomb. They also discovered that Neveu is The Grail in terms of 'the vine's' blood line. Yet both acknowledge, paraphrased, "There is no way to know for sure, all is uncertain, and that is reality's only fact." Indeed.
Rosslyn church was built by Templars in 1446 (near Edinburgh Scotland) and "...the chapel is engraved with a mind-boggling array of symbols from the Jewish, Christian, Egyptian, Masonic, and pagan [~gnostic?] traditions." Page 430 of Brown's illustrated 2003 Doubleday edition. Our reason for taking a moment to reflect on that quote is how well it aligns Gandhi's remarks about his own beliefs being an amalgam of many, not a OSFA monism.
Our sincere congratulations to Brown, Howard, all those marvelous actors and actresses, all those diligent folk who made this great movie. What an experience, what a thoroughly quantonic experience!!!
Something about both books almost surreal for Doug. Doug could quantum stage 'see' those movies on his quantum stage before they were even made. Somehow Doug visualized that police chief before Howard ever decided on his cast. Actual image was close to similar police official in Hannibal, one eviscerated by Lecter. Similarly Teabing (anagram of Baigent), although Doug saw that old gent who was Arthur's caretaker in that role also.
A bottom line: Don't believe those lies of people who do not want you to see it... They are the villains!
Beware dogma and doctrine, beware universalism, always.
Beware those who tell you they know what "God wants," always. Certain religion is an oxymoron. Only a dialectical mind, a demonstrably naïve mind, could fathom religion as certain.
Doug is gradually shutting all dialecticians out of his life...Doug wants naught to do with their brick-laden thingk-king.
Doug - 20May2006
On ... Doug's view of 'Opus Dei'...
How many times have you heard anyone explain what 'Opus Dei' means 'literally?' We've been listening, but like 'Da Vinci' as a book title and as a human's name (in that case we have heard one instance) 'Opus Dei' appears little understood, at least 'literally.'
Leonardo da Vinci means "Leonardo of | from | socially associated | familially associated with Italian town of Vinci. It's like saying, instead of Thomas Jefferson, rather Thomas of Philadelphia, Thomas da Philadelphia: Thomas of Love of God's Love.
So what does 'Opus Dei' mean literally? "Work of God." And "God's work." More appropriately we might literally say, "Gods' works." Depends upon whether you adhere monism vis-à-vis pluralism, etc. Also, it depends upon what models of reality you adhere. Some academics' models of reality exclude 'God' so they might insist on us adhering something like, "Works of Man" latter which is known primarily as "humanism" and "anthropocentrism."
As you learn more about opus dei we ask you to ask yourself one question. "Is opus dei God's work?"
Yes, we know, literally our answer is "yes."
Let's try it again. "Is your work, opus you, God's work?" Some of you will answer "yes," and some of you will answer "no," and some of you will answer "Hell no!"
Is it easy for you to answer that simple question? Are you struggling with an answer?
If you are a thinking being, at this juncture, and if you are honest with yourself, you may be experiencing tinglings of, "Oh, oh, there's trouble in river city. That starts with a 'T' and rhymes with 'P' ..." which according to its original lyricist doesn't stand for 'phi.'
Which 'trouble' is that anyway? Hmmm...?
This: dialectically 'yes' is 'no's' opposite. 'Yes' and 'no' are logical ideals (from any classical conspective).
"Is opus you 'opus dei?' Let's make it a little tougher: "Are you dei?"
If you have to answer, ideally, either yes or no, that last question becomes embarrassingly and unnervingly difficult. If you answer 'yes,' society will declare you "insane" and lock you up. Christians and Muslims will indict your blasphemy.
If you answer 'no' everyone (who is a dialectician) will agree with you and praise your superb rationale and perspicacity. Catholics will want you as their own.
Conventional logic, akin either yes or no, knows that no human being is or can be God. Good 'catholics' (i.e., universalists) believe all mankind are logically separate from God. Further catholics believe that Jesus is God.
It's really easy to get lost here...how about an interim summary?
Catholic 'logic' is ideally dialectical, so (according Thomas Aquinas) we can answer all questions either yes or no, 'opus dei' is God's work, and 'opus you' is not God's work, and Jesus is God, and no human is or can be God.
Given that can humans do 'opus dei?' Catholics answer "yes" else Opus Dei would not exist, would it?
So what is this work, this work of God? Catholics believe that their church leaders know what God wants so, 'yes,' those leaders know what to do in their opus dei. Do you know what to do? Do you know what to believe? Do you know what God wants? Answer for yourself now, dialectically, either yes or no!
You refuse? Why? You can't? Why? You do not want to? Why?
Some of you though will say, "Yes!" With that answer comes a huge burden. You have to responsibly explain to, at least yourself, how you know what God wants and what you believe and why you believe it. Essence here, though, is 'how, what, and why' what you believe or what you have been taught to believe? Again, "Can you explain what you believe?", yes or no?
That query is crucial! It applies to each of us as individuals whether we are scientists, religionists, spiritualists, gnostics, agnostics, atheists, teachers, preachers,..., whatever... If you or I cannot explain what we believe, at least to ourselves, then we are just hypocrites when we try to assess what anyone else believes.
Daniel C. Dennett is an atheist. Dennett claims he is ruthlessly attempting to be Breaking the Spell. But Dennett is a hypocrite! A scientific hypocrite! He shows us in Chapter 8 of his 2006 Breaking the Spell, that he uses 'science' and scientific reason to express his rationale against religion, but he doesn't understand 'science.' Others understand 'science' and that is good enough for him!
An inability to understand religion is Dennett's biggest claim against anyone believing in it.
But Dennett just showed us that in his own religion, 'science,' that is what he does!
Doug - 14Jun2006.
End crucial aside.
Most 'scientists' will tell you that God does not exist. So using that kind of language those scientists say "Opus Dei is bogus!" That is what most scientists have learned and teach. Why? "Religion isn't scientific." What does that mean? Presumably, it means religion isn't dialectical and science is dialectical. But 'catholicism' due Thomas Aquinas' efforts is dialectical! Both catholicism and science claim to be able to answer all questions either yes or no, reliably. Then why do some scientists claim religion is bogus? Why do some religionists claim science is bogus?
Doug's answer is simple: "Dialectic is bogus."
Dialectic is a mechanical way of thing-king. It is a (one of unlimited many) method(s) of thought.
But humans are n¤t mechanical. Humans are n¤t dialectical!
But both church and science teach us that reality is dialectical and that we must thingk and 'judge' dialectically!
Our point then is that any organization which teaches its adherents that reality is dialectical and mechanically logical is lying to you.
Further, it is easy to assess that. If all their queries to you require either yes or no answers, they are dialectical. If any organization's creed, canon, and structure finds its bases in dialectic, that organization is bogus.
One more point. If you study ancient history you will find that Jesus was not a dialectician. Most humans ('the called,' 'the psychics') listened to Jesus literally, dialectically. In those cases what was written about Jesus was written in simple language which was dialectical, and as a result what we read today is n¤t what Jesus said, but what was dialectically interpreted as what he said. Ditto Mohammed. Some humans ('the elect,' 'the pneumatics'), a very few, could understand what Jesus said (which in Doug's terminology here we would call "n¤n dialectical") and those few were called "optimistic gnostics." Early church leaders, especially Irenaeus and Constantine hated gnostics and tried to destroy all their works. Some 'lost' works have been found and preserved. Those works show us a Jesus incredibly different (omniffering) from a dialectical 'catholic' Jesus.
Gnostic Jesus told us that we should n¤t do what we hate. He told us we should find God in our (individual) selves. To Doug that is an epiphany! It is n¤t dialectical! It is quantum. Jesus' gn¤sticism taught that God is in us! But 'catholics' are taught and believe that God is dialectically separate from us!
Now, go back and ask those previous questions again. Is opus you opus dei? Gn¤stic Jesus says, "yæs."
But 'catholics' hate gnosticism. And catholics claim that Jesus is God?
To put this all in Millennium III terminology, "Dialectical science and dialectical religion are unsustainable; both practice n¤n evolutionarily stable strategies." Doug's appraisal? Dialectic is unsustainable! However, without belief, that appraisal is itself unsustainable.
Some of you want to compare vis-à-vis what gnostics believe which omniffers what catholics and protestants believe. Stephan A. Hoeller offers some lists which will assist your personal (i.e., gnostic) investigations.
Thank you for reading,
Doug - 19-28May2006
See you here again in early July, 2006!