This is our May, 2006 editorial. Go directly to 2006 May News

Doug's selection of most perfidious threats to US security: George W. Bush Ken Mehlman Karl Rove Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfield Condoleezza Rice Stephen Hadley John McCain and utterly inutile Michael Chertoff But recall Clinton's administration! Their incompetence managing USA security was as bad or worse than Bu()sh()'s. Time, now, for a quantum approach? Doug - 11Mar-2Apr2006. Bu()sh() has n¤ wu! How is he going to work with Hu? Doug - 17Apr2006. Recent Google News headline... "Osteoporosis drug reduces risk of breast cancer." Sydney Morning Herald Do you see problematics with that classical statement? Whoever wrote that or said that should have said, "It appears that some new osteoporosis drug reduces risk of breast cancer." Drug affects are probabilistic. Drug affects have no classically ideal way of being uniparametric (which is directly implied by breast cancer side affects). Drug affects and side affects are all macroscopically uncertain too. Drugs appear to work. Drugs cannot be classically 'proven' to always work. See Mitch's query on 'absolute truth.' Doug - 18Apr2006. Micro$oft is almost over. M$ doesn't understand security, www, and how acquisitions almost always fail. Micro$oft seldom delivers quality product on time within budget. Micro$oft is a perfect example of a failing business paradigm: MBO. MBO is in a rapid process of replacement by MBU! Compare M$ corporate productivity (sales per employee) to Apple's and Google's. Compare M$ software productivity to Apple. Apple does at least 10x quality with 10% as many people! We can imagine Apple or Google buying Microsoft (only to own legacy app's.) for a penny on a dollar within 5-10 years. Say goodby, M$. Notice how similar King Gates and King Bush are...Notice how a bankrupt U$ is about to go in a global toilet, soon... Sad, sad, sad... Doug - 1May2006. You hear Bill Maher's Gay Cowboy ratings punch line? "Gives new meaning to coming in number two." Sorta knocks some SOM bricks off a cliché! Tasteless, but provocatively hilarious. Talk about glansing iconogasm. Doug - 12Mar2006. Imus had Donald Trump on his show this morning. We seldom do this, but when Trump is on Imus we mute our telly until 'The Donald' has passed. Synaesthetically, listening to Trump, for us, is like listening to mashed pumpkin with swirling orange moss growing on top. D' on al d' T(ime)-rump. Doug - 13Mar2006. Bu()sh()'s administration has set USA up for a long period of extreme inflation! Be pondering means of protecting yourself from inflation. Doug - 14Mar2006. More powerful, more highly evolved and evolving quantum~fluxing~memetics are higher energy than dialectic's stux sux. Energy of any sort tends to well. Neural net folk call welling thoughts "energy wells." As a meme emerqs, its energy well may grow. It tends to attract interrelationshipings with other energy wellings. Better, more highly evolved and evolving wells of energy pull! Quanta are energy wells. Quanta attract quanta. Multiplicities of quanta evolve. Multiplicities of quanta have OEDC emergenceimmergence ontologies: quantons(resurrection,self~euthanasia). Doug - 25Apr2006. One of the greatest crimes ever committed on Earth was to socialize religion. Why? Religion is an individual pattern of value. Each sentient's religion is unique. To try to socialize religion, to try to acculturate religion is a crime against individual freedom of thought. Each individual can and must be free to believe he-r own beliefs, n¤t yours, n¤t mine, rather theirs. Individual faith may be [in Doug's view it is] one of our quantum~multiverse's greatest powers, but when we socialize individual faith, it loses its Quality! Henry D. Aiken in his review of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion exegetizes this way, "The worst effect of organized religion is its subversion of sincerity and [gn¤stic] self-knowledge." Doug's brackets. Henry D. Aiken Harvard University May, 1948 Introduction to Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Readers should note that Hume is brilliant; however, his brilliance finds its received knowledge in dialectical analysis. If you read Hume's 'dialogues' be aware that his three protagonist-antagonists are Philo, Cleanthes, and Demea. Philo most closely aligns Hume's philosophical views. But to many, including Hume, Cleanthes' sometimes sophist, sometimes more quantum perspectives are higher value. We concur. Demea is a pure dialectical SOMite. Doug - 26Apr2006.

2006 TQS News December, 2005 through November, 2006

Month:

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT    OCT SE

NOV

DEC

You are here:

Topics:

Failure of Orthodox Christianity

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, Dennett's BtS,

Doug Critiques Sull's 'Difficult Decisions for an Uncertain World'

Doug on novel Millennium III Business Thinking

What will happen in mid-terms? Howard's Movie The Da Vinci Code... Doug's view of 'Opus Dei'...

Free energy!

High Speed Internet, DMD's Quantum Simplicity, Duggeritas™, & Duggerizzas™

Interim energy, N-somy tells, ChouricoGumbo

FPGA patents running out, Collegiate MRSA staph, Classical Sentences, vav Quantum Sentences

Searching Quantonics, Quantonics Top 20 Pages, Why Static Truth is Irrelevant

Nostalgia, MacBookPro C2D, Didactism & autodidactism, Doug's iPod video

May, 2006 News

On ... Doug's counsel for a novel approach to Millennium III 'Business Thinking'...

Doug's preliminary caveats...

Doug is a human being. Doug is fallible. Doug has opinions. Doug exploits his sovereign individual rights to express his opinions. Doug's great desire for humanity is simply better. That desire realizes that we probably can never arrive, so better is our alternative to best. Quantonics is Doug's effort, an opus of 10-20 years of careful (again, Doug's perspective of 'careful') and selective reading and careful and considered thought about what is a better way of thinking. N¤t the way of thinking, rather a way of thinking.

Since it is Doug's thought, n¤t anyone else's thought (excepting our cherished mentors whom we assiduously acknowledge at each use of their words and memes), we have to ask you to accept Doug's thought n¤t as received ex cathedra knowledge, rather as well-pondered personal opinion.

Aside...

Other night Bethahava and Doug were discussing these issues as we sipped our beverages after dinner.

Bethahava asked, "But isn't some of what Quantonics teaches normative?"

Doug, "N¤! We assume a quantum reality. In any quantum reality all changes and always changes. To be normative, that which is declared normative, must n¤t change in order for it to be normative. Makes Doug think of nearly 10 years ago on Lila Squad when someone declared Doug's 'There are n¤ absolute truths' normatively absolute. In a dialectical reality normatives are the norm. In any quantum reality, all is always tentative."

Bethahava, "But what in quantum reality imposes n¤n normativity...?"

End aside.

Quantum reality is uncertain due its own, up to Planck rate, self~other~referent~evolution. First, we believe that! Second, we agree with Paul Pietsch in his Shufflebrain, that "Indeterminacy [nonnormativity] is the principal feature of intelligence." (Doug's brackets.) Only Voltairean rogues will tell you that they are certain of anything. Notice: belief and agreement are n¤t quantumly normative. Belief quantum~evolves! Agreement quantum~evolves! Any of us, any timings, can change (individual free will) our beliefs and our agreements.

Uncertainty is a manifestation of quantum reality's absolute change. If there are any absolutes, that is one, but it isn't a certain absolute is it? If change is absolute then certainty based upon immutable concrete stability is impossible, yes?

Major implication: minds, like bodies, evolve. Classical concepts (Plato's immutable ideas) do n¤t evolve. Quantum memes evolve. Which is real? What is reality?

You have to decide for yourself. We cann¤t and should n¤t decide for you! Recall what Doug wrote in his How to Become a Student of Quantonics: "Fecundate your vicissitudes. Bæ you!"

But if you intuit change as absolute, and you run a business, and you have been taught to think classically that reality is about absolute stability (with only y=f(t) temporal motion of objects), you may realize that your thinking suddenly is inadequate for a quantum tsunami which is already upon us.

If so, Quantonics is for you, and this May issue of our TQS News is especially prepared for you.

Thank you in advance for having read this far and with our hope you choose to proceed.

If status quo is your way to go, though, better back out of this web page now; however,

If Quantum Lightings™ are part of your future and your business' future, pull out all those classical stops, throw them away, and CHARGE!

Doug - 1Apr2006. (No foolin' )

We advised all of you to read Ernst & Young's and Financial Times' Four Part Series on a New Way of Doing Business Thinking Based Upon Uncertainty.

As you know we were extremely enthusiastic after reading Sull (B+) and Wind (B) in Part I.

Now we have received and examined Parts II, III & IV. Ugh! Status quo! Same old same old! Nearly all other authors are still using classical dialectical thingk-king methods and their tinker toys mechanical 'tool' boxes to reassemble 'the known' into some thing 'new.' These people still believe that analysis and synthesis are yet viable at Millennium III's beginning. They still believe that reality is determinate, cause-effective, objective, quantitative, mechanically immutable, and so on... It's all just and simply classical hocus bogosity!

We call those classical, dialectical decrepit ways of thingk-king "CTMs."

If business leaders intend to be successful, and Doug means this emphatically, throw your CTMs away.

Why?

If your competitors are adapting to genuinely novel ways of think-king which involve organization-wide adoption of adaptation, they are going to kill your CTM-organization!

If your organization is classically, dialectically, determinate, object-quantity-centric...

And if your competition is adaptive~sophisticate, subject~quality~inclusive...

Say goodbye to your classical business.

Let's do a futuristic example (this is only a partial example of imminent future impacts to business 'management'):

Within 10-20 years and perhaps sooner, most 'products' will have embedded bionons. Bionons will have capabilities to adapt to their environments. All bionons will have to be trained. As a real world example of bionon training imagine how specialists today (2006) train guide dogs and police dogs. What is unusual about that when we view it from a business (con)perspective? Are any two dogs same? Are any two target environments same? Are any two trainers same? Are any two users of trained dogs same?

Now a key question. Do those "dog training" business models work? Then, correlatively, are police dogs and guide dogs successful and valuable? Can you quantify their value? Can you qualify their value?

Another key question. Is our imagined business objective? Subjective? If you attempt to make this kind of business fit a OSFA classical model, will it remain viable?

Now ponder this. If most of our products in 10-20 years have embedded bionons which have to be trained, are our businesses going to be more objective (as we conceive them now), yet perhaps more subjective (as we have attempted to exemplify)?

Now compare mechanical product "mass customization" to nonmechanical emerscent "adaptation."

You may find it omnifficult to believe, accept, surmise, fathom, grasp,..., but in 10-20 years all airplanes and automobiles and countless other 'products' we now dialectically, mechanically, formally take for granted will be adaptive and will require extensive training to be successfully adapted to target environments. Ponder value of 'trained' products vis-à-vis 'untrained' products. Will bionon products have planned obsolescence? Will families keep 'old' bionons?

We already live with and are emersed in nearly total uncertainty. Adaptive bionons and hybrids can and shall offer some insulation to their owners and users from massively proliferating and natural uncertainties. Even management uncertainties!

We shall expect businesses to deliver emerscent and emerscing adaptations, adaptive products, which deal with, even manage, uncertainty well!

If you think our business 'information' age was something, just wait...no, best not wait...best be preparing...for dealing at reality's edgings of nowings...with an adaptive business-like demeanor.

"Uncertainty immersion" is a sound bite which shall resound and echo halls of every institution, every organization, ubiquitously...

Classical mechanistic approaches based upon dialectical objectivism are passé. Objective anything is dead! Digital is dead! MBO is dead! _wMBU™ is in its ascension!

It's time for businesses to "get real."

Doug - 31Mar2006.

By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2010 Means: New~Revised
	Classical	Quantum	Classical	Quantum
	Quantity to Quality		XX or XY to XX...,XY... and XX...,XX... (Roughly 102000 Allele Quala Potentia-10; Use Sex (Cr. pair 23) as an Exemplar Here.)
	Assumption: Markets are relatively 'stable;' preferences are universal and can be modeled as OSFA; change is temporal motion. Absoluteness - a mythos, 'science,' which: completeness - states all truths and consistency - always states the truth Bases of Judgment stability (Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle) independence (Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle) negation contradiction (Plato, Aristotle) falsifiability (Karl Popper) proof (Plato, Aristotle) truth (Plato, Aristotle) Logic Measurability Scalar metrics (scalarbation) etc.	Supposition: Markets are volatile; preferences are omniversal, omnivalent and radically, stochastically changing rapidly Absoluteness - an emersos which: completeness - changes all and consistency - always changes Bases of Judgment provability (Kurt Gödel) probability plausibility likelihood static good (Robert M. Pirsig) dynamic good (Robert M. Pirsig) emergent good Coquecigrues Monitorability Emerscent fuzzons (evolution) etc.	Assumption: There are only two classes of sexual preference Sexual bivalency (Classically naïve "two-valuedness") Either male or female etc.	Supposition: Sexual islandicities are innumerable and sexual preferences are stochastic Sexual omnivalency (vaster market preference base) Male and Female and Hermaphrodite and Merm-2 and Ferm and QLOistic genderings and N-somial genderings and QLOistic DNA Homo S-ings and Indigo-ings and Neo Sapiens-ings and etc.
	Certainty to Ihndeterminacy DIQ to QIC		Social Monistic Theocracy to Individual Omniplex Veritas
	Assumption: Intelligence Quotient "Certainty is the principal feature of classical intelligence"0 Management controlled planning works Every 'event' has an identifiable, cartesian 'time and place' cause Every cause has an effect; every effect has a cause etc.	Supposition: Intellectual Curiosity "Uncertainty is quantum intellect's principal thematic pragma1" Plausing is ethical since all stakeholders share in selectionings' pragma All affectings are ensembles All affectings are selected by decisionings and by indecisionings etc.	Assumption: Object over Subject Society objectively above individual subjects One societal belief system fits all Social Globalism - World Order - Global Order One social truth fits all One social context fits all Universalism - catholicism Diversity2 (talk) - University (walk) One legal system fits all One religion fits all One science fits all One social reality model fits all OSFA etc.	Supposition: Individuals above OSFA societies Many individual belief systems Coherence of many individual autonomies3
	Effect to Affect		Analytic Dissociation to C¤herent Ass¤ciati¤n
	Assumption: All business effects are caused: 1 cause per 1 effect Retroflective causal planning determines predicable effects   etc.	Supposition: All business pragma are ensemble choosings affectational Proflective choosings select WHNings5 All affectings are proflective selectionings ensembles etc.	Assumption: EEMD Objective independence 1-1 Correspondence 'Di' agra Unilateral other control	Supposition: EIMA Quantum superposition Interrelative sorso Hologra SOrON
	Manufacture to Emerscenture		Architecture to Emerscitecture
	Assumption: static manufacturing methods, whose certainty is verifiable, produce predictable, static, 'finished' end products; quality is controlled, scalar metric n-sigma; notion of zero scrap is critical success factor; notion of 100% assembly uptime is CSF; customer adapts to product;	Supposition: Emerscenture is kin of evolute birthing (viz. calving of icebergs, spawning avalanches, etc.)	Assumption: material, objective, static design	Supposition: biononic, emergent adaptation
	One Life Centrism to Unending Ontic Reiterationings		Tragedy of Commons Sense to Avatars of Individual Extra¤rdinary Sense
	Assumption: products are born, live, die and are discarded-decommissioned-destroyed Product value declines with age	Supposition: products evolve, adapt Product value may grow with age	Assumption: "Vulgi opinio error," Thomas Digges' denouerment of classicism's tragedy of commons sense Boris Sidis' herd thingking Social consensus above individual prodigy Teams try to groupthingk; fruit? mediocrity, static virtue	Supposition: quantum coherence compenetrating multiplicate individuicities Individuals think; fruit? excellence, animate aretê
	Homo sapien to Neo sapien		Closed to Open
	Assumption: humans are the final stage in human phenotypical evolution (some claim "design")	Supposition: humans' phenotypical successors are potentially unlimited	Assumption: Closed systems cannot evolve Closed systems become extinct	Supposition: Open systems can evolve Open systems may practice ESS
	State is simple to Flux is simple
	Assumption: See simple See "state is simple and flux is complex"	Supposition: See simplicity See "flux is simple"	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Truth over Good to Good over Truth		Pisces to Aquarius
	Assumption: classic philosophers ilk, Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle inverted sophists' Good over Truth to Truth over Good; most in western culture today (2006) adhere classical notions of Truth above Good	Supposition: quantum philosophers of ilk Heraclitus, Zeno, Hamann, Bergson, James, Pirsig, et al.	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Exclusion to Inclusion		Orthodoxy to Hætær¤d¤xy
	Assumption: Dichotomy Schism lisr	Supposition: Coherence Gestalt Ensemble coinsidence	Assumption: reality is a monism One product design fits all customers One business method fits all businesses etc.	Supposition: reality is many pluralisms Products adapt to uniquenesses of customers Styles of wahveMBU™ are essentially unlimited etc.
	State to Pr¤cess		Stux to Flux
	Assumption: "state is simple" Stux is crux Process is repeatable and reversible	Supposition: "change is simple" Flux is crux Process is fractal and unique from run to run In general process is nonreversible	Assumption: "stoppability is simple and essential to analysis" Stux is simple A good 'design' lasts forever	Supposition: "absolute animacy is simple and essential to evolution" Flux is simple Endless adaptation can be an ESS
	Push to Pull		Concrete to Phenomena
	Assumption: Marketing and sales involve businesses telling and showing customers what to thingk and what to like State-ic and monistic customer wants and needs are essential to business continuity	Supposition: Marketing and sales discovers what customers' likings are and how customers' likings are changings Dynamic and pluralistic customer wantings and needings are essential to customer satisfaction	Assumption: Reality is stable	Supposition: Reality is emerscent and novelly phenomenal
	Social Hegemony to Ihndihvihdual Frææ Will		Cathedral to Bazaar
	Assumption: "As GM goes, so goes the nation!" One to one	Supposition: Individuals pluralistically lead, society viscously trudges. Many to many	Assumption: Management By Objective, top down, from the chair: vertical layered hierarchy; management is separate from workers and workers are separate from management Marketplace is analytic Vision is monolithic; mission is definable	Supposition: Wave Management By Uncertainty; management is in a company and a company is in management Marketplace is heterogeneous, n¤nlinear and volatile Vision and mission are wholly adaptive
	Sanguine to Indigo
	Assumption:	Supposition:	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Either-Or to Both~And
	Assumption: Dialectic Formalism Singular, active-passive voice	Supposition: Rhetoric Sophism Plural, present participle	Assumption:	Supposition:
	One to Many
	Assumption: One size fits all; there is only one universe, there is only one God (our god), '1' exists, only one version of any 'feature' can be offered (features are immutable and cannot evolve), one global order, Monism (classical homogeneous thingk-king) enables 'other' above 'self' authority and 'other' over 'self' authoritative abuse Voltaire, "The first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool." 'Science:' "One scientific paradigm fits all, we know the truth and just let us tell you what it is..." 'Religion:' "There is but one God, our God, we know the truth and just let us tell you what it is..." One society is above all individuals	Supposition: Pluralism (quantum~heterogeneous~think~king) disables 'other divined' authority via self-declaration of self as sovereign above social 'others' who proclaim sovereignty above individuals Optimistic gnostics and quantum~hermeneuts adhere a meme that self~understanding is above, superseding and superior to received 'knowledge' See first four chapters (at least) of Women's Ways of Knowing All individuals are above any society; read Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Philip, also read Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, and her The Origin of Satan, read John Stuart Mill, "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."	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Static to Dynamic
	Assumption:	Supposition:	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Dichon to Quanton
	Assumption: Reality is stable, EOOO dichon(business, global_market) dichon(business, customers) dichon(business, employees) dichon(management, employees) dichon(management, customers) dichon(employees, customers) etc.	Supposition: Reality is animate, EIMA quanton(business,global_market) quanton(business,customers) quanton(business,employees) quanton(management,employees) quanton(management,customers) quanton(employees,customers) etc.	Assumption:	Supposition:
	Note -10 - Supposition here is an old one: human body has about 105 genes. Recently we have seen estimates of half that number, and even one fourth that number. Let's use that number and then we can just divide exponents by 2 and 4, whatever ratio we need. Using our old estimate and a supposition that 6.7% of those gene's alleles are (again, classically, dialectically, bivalently dichon(off,on)) 'variable,' (coitally selectable) that gives us 26700 possible variations on any human being. If a human has only 50,000 genes that number drops to 23350 (halved exponent) and if a human has only 25,000 genes that number drops to 21675. If we show that number in base 10 we must divide those estimates' exponents by 3.32 (power to which 2 must be raised to equal 10) and change bases: 102018, 101009, and 10505. Regardless, those numbers are huge by most Earth comparisons. Note -2 - Terms merm and ferm are from Anne Fausto Sterling's March/April 1993 article titled 'The Five Sexes.' See NYAS' The Sciences. Note 0 - Paraphrase of quote from Paul Pietsch's Shufflebrain. Note 1 - We use 'pragma' here in its original Greek semantic of absolute action. Modern 'use' bastardizes pragma to 'practical.' By "thematic pragma" we intend quantum~subjective, qualitative, absolute action. Any quantum~uncertain and thus qualitative~holographic 'social,' i.e., EIMA aspects of thematic pragma are due intrinsic physial quantum coherence, n¤t innate classical social engineering AKA "intelligent social design." See uncertain, subject, object, quality, holographic, absolute. Doug - 2Apr2006. Note 2 - As linguistically practiced 'classical di versity' is usually linguistically intended (talk) as pluralistic multiversity. Strangely, 'diversity' of views is allowed as PC; however, 'diversity' of ethics and morals are verboten. Note 3 - See Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm, p. 153, World Scientific, 1993. Note 5 - WHNings is an acronym for "Whatings Happenings Nextings."
By Doug Renselle — ©Quantonics, Inc., 2006-2010 Means: New~Revised

If you do not currently subscribe to Financial Times home edition, we recommend you do it. (No affiliation twixt Quantonics and Financial Times. Great newspaper, though.) Lot's of ugly US news coming in next few years and these folk are staying on top of it. Big US stocks, e.g., GM and Ford + Microsoft, et al., are in serious trouble. Recent article by congressman Jim Cooper shows how US is headed for major world bankruptcy problems soon...

Bush has to go people! Sooner than later, folks! He's taking our country down and he's taking us with him. Stop drinking Bush's grape koolaid.

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 1May2006.

See you here again in early June, 2006!

Doug.