Our editorials are often provocative; if we offend you, do n¤t read them - Doug.
These editorials are Doug's opinions, n¤t the opinions.
Go directly to 2008 February News
On 27Jan2008 one of you asked this, to us, very interesting question:
"What happens when two subatomic particles collide?"
Two classical words are problematic here:
1) 'particles,' and
Reality isn't classical!
Reality is quantum!
Let's write a quantum~complementary version of that question:
"What happens when two subatomic quantons interrelate?"
Interrelate immediately offers us a huge range of possible interrelationship energies.
Too, it offers us opportunity to say that "Unentangled (same class: boson and fermion) quantons do n¤t interrelate (affect) one another." Using 'particulate collision' an implicit assumption is made that all 'particles' will 'collide,' which in quantum~reality simply isn't so. It's like assuming that increased carbon dioxide emissions 1-1 'root cause' global-warming. Any photon can interrelate any electron. However, a photon can only interrelate (interfere) with itself and any other photon with which it is (has become) quantum~entangled. Ditto electrons. Ditto nucleons (see Discovery Magazine's Beams of Stuff).
Without any other criticism by Doug, we can answer that QED describes nearly all photon~electron interrelationships.
Similarly QCD describes most nucleon~electron interrelationships.
Beyond those two general classes of explication, nuclear, electronic, and photonic radiation come in several categories. See our Notes on Radiation.
Our questioner used 'collision' to describe, we guess, intentionally violent 'particle' accelerator 'forced' interrelationships among 'particles' which perhaps wouldn't 'normally' interrelate. 'Forced' interrelationships fall in a category of what we call "non linearities" which impose entanglement among particles which 'normally' wouldn't become entangled. When planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies 'collide' there are boundless 'forced' interrelationships which magnify entanglements in an almost unlimited way.
Subsequent those massively creative cosmic acts, biological life may emerge. It uses many quantons that are entangled both locally and n¤nlocally. This is a large part of what Doug means when he says "We are in It and It is in us."
Follow links to superposition, interference, and scintillation under that entangle link just above.
Doug - 30Jan2008.
South Carolina! Bill Clinton's second impeachment!
A public impeachment, impeachment of Bill Clinton, by the people, for the people!
We want no mo yo!
No mo yo!
No mo status quo!
Doug - 27Jan2008.
A crypto conservative! A pseudo conservative.
A tax raiser!
A war monger!
"We need to keep US troops in 'the' Middle-East indefinitely, perhaps another 100 years."
McAin't appears to like ideas which allow eight years of political incompetence to perpetuate itself. McAin't wants to perpetuate GWBu()sh()'s contrived war in Iraq. McAin't shows his idiocy by calling it a "war." War against terrorism is an oxymoron. Terrorism is non national. Every nation has terrorists! Terrorism is one class of globalism which expresses itself through small groups, cells, of individuals. War cannot mitigate that kind of terrorism, period.
An octogenarian incompetent!
"I admit to not knowing much about economics. I need extra learning on economics!"
Plainly, if he believes in "War against terrorism" neither does he understand terrorism.
Dim Old'McAin't, "How does one get 'experience' as a warrior when one spends most of his military career in a VC prison? Are you going to imprison yourself in White House's oval office and never come out." Are you going to claim, "My major anti-terrorist experience is jail time as a war criminal?"
Dim Old'McAin't, you said, "Global warming is scientific fact! The science is final!"
John McAin't, a politician who simply does not grasp that all science is at best, provisional. A 'scientific' political-idiot who believes weather is determinant.
McAin't doesn't understand economics, terrorism, and science!
You gonna vote for this political inept?
Doug says, "Republican'ts, even crypto-pseudo Republican'ts, go to hell!"
Doug - 27Jan2008.
HotMeme "Most indescribability is only tentative." HotMeme.
When real novelty emerges, and current language has no means of describing it, invent language which describes it and describe all your new terms analogically via both new and old so others can learn.
Otherwise, language is just like a prison: a social pattern of status quo is our (society's) way to go. Any society which is imprisoned in dogma, state-ic 'law,' and unchanging-immutable notions deserves to have its language and thing-king changed.
Societies need to get out of their own anachronistic boxes-prisons too!
Society's stux, its mentally bankrupt ineptnesses are making themselves abundantly apparent now.
If you as an individual are stuck, invent a new you.
You must do that to survive.
What worked yesterday...
May fail now...
"Doug, why is that real?"
We of Western culture have been living in a classical reality. A reality based in Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian, Thomist, Buridanian, Baconian, Cartesian, Newtonian, Einsteinian thing-king. All of those peoples' languages and thoughts depend upon classical ideas and concepts whose bases are 'state' (anti-change, "holds-still" ability), and radically mechanical independence of all things.
Real emergence of novelty is impossible in that kind of mentally brick-walled socially-retarded state-ic reality.
But we see novelty everyday. Mount St. Helen's, Shoemaker-Levy, Katrina, tsunamis, uncontrollable weather, uncontrollable accidents, uncontrollable stockmarkets, ubiquitous macroscopic uncertainty (which is cumulative when natural processes are mechanically 'controlled') of all processes, etc. Humans learn gradually that natural novelty may be delayed, but only tentatively.
Novelty emerges and evolves naturally in a n¤n mechanical reality.
"But if it isn't classical, what kind of reality must it be Doug?"
Actually, that is easy to answer.
A n¤n state-ic reality. A n¤n objective reality.
"Doug I hate negatives!"
A dynamic reality. A subjective reality.
"What kind of reality is that Doug?"
We can, could, probably will describe it an unlimited number of ways, but three quantum descriptions (one philosophical, one scientific, and one complementary Sophial pneumatic~wisdom belief system AKA a gnostic~pneuma belief system) have emerged over several millennia which come closest on a comparative basis to other current competitors. Classical reality historically has done its best to efface all three of these quantum descriptions.
Philosophically (i.e., classically about answering "What is truth?"): Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, MoQ.
Scientifically (i.e., classically about answering "What is true?"): Quantum n¤nMechanics, QnM.
Sophially (i.e., quantumly about answering "What is Gnostic~Pneumatic Sophist Wisdom?"): Quantum Gn¤stic Pneuma of Sophia, QGP¤S.
Since MoQ, QnM, QGP¤S are n¤n classical, they adhere macroscopic and microscopic quantum~uncertainty, so we lose any classical notions of 'truth,' and 'true.' We have to give up dialectic in all of our quantum~language. Quantum~language in Quantonics is what we refer as "Quantum English Language Remediated." Quantonics has prepared extensive lists of QELR words and "Quantum English Language Problematics."
"Doug, what happens when we give up dialectic?"
We give up objective thing-king which may be described many ways: CTMs, EOOO, EEMD, OSFA, static, stoppable, immutable, determinate-cause-effect, etc. In our review of Jammer's quantum~logic we offer an extended list of classical notions which we must give up.
What do we gain by giving up dialectic?
In place of either-or we gain quantum~complementarity.
In place of absolutely certain determinism we gain all-positive-energy stochastics.
Note that "...determinism only works in a reality wholly absent change." P. A. M. Dirac paraphrased.
Note how "...stochastics easily monitor real change in quantum~reality." Logical pragmatism summarized.
That's why Doug says we must leave classical stuckness and enter quantum~fluxness.
"Stux sux!" Bricks break brains.
"Flux is crux!" Waves are wondrous.
"But Doug, how do those novelties emerge in a 'flux is crux' reality?"
We need at least three basic quantum memeos to describe emerging quantum~novelty: quantum~entanglement, quantum~coherence, and quantum~interference. Entangled waves self~other interfere, while unentangled waves pass through one another without affective interference. Simply, wave interference occurs among entangled waves. Entangled phase interference superposes waves. Superposition of entangled water waves "go rogue" due incompressibility of partially quantum~coherent water which tentatively "self~holds" its "shape." Doug -25Jan2008.
Did you happen to see those excellent programs (recall Discovery Channel and BBC) on rogue waves? People classically thought rogue waves were 100 year events. A 'rogue' scientist found (using satellite stochastic monitoring) they are relatively more common.
That, folks, is a quantum tell of emerging novelty.
If you throw away your objective thing-king, and adapt to and adopt quantum flux thinkq~king, you can find real ways to describe how rogue waves and other novel phenomena are quantum~normal.
When Doug sat in West Oregon mid-coast deltas and watched how water waves interrelated, he saw both rogue and n¤n rogue behaviors.
Waves which previously had not interrelated one another passed through one another without altering their wave patterns. However, waves which had previously interrelated, became entangled~quantumly.
Unentangled wave energy passes through other wave energy without quantum~interference.
Entangled wave energy superposes ("adds up") and creates rogue waves. It's so in water. It's so in radio waves. It explains radio interference and it explains tsunamis and rogue waves.
Here, "rogue" means novelty.
Quantum reality explains how novelty (sometimes called accident and uncertainty) is normal.
Classical reality explains how absence of change, absence of fresh air, absence of novelty is socially state-ic normality.
This applies to politicians too!
Obama: dynamic, pragmatic (Greek pragma as action), fresh air, "Let's try this," "If it doesn't work, we'll adapt," "Change is essence, quintessence of reality," etc.
A third metaphor we may use here is biology's use of phylogeny.
issi n¤nsyn¤nym¤us omnivergence
An excellent reference showing biological phylogeny is here.
Said reference is AAAS' Science Journal 25Jan2008 issue, a report entitled, 'Alignment Uncertainty and Genomic Analysis,' pp. 473-476.
Compare genetic alignment uncertainty to our omniscussion just above:
"We need at least three basic quantum memeos to describe emerging quantum~novelty: quantum~entanglement, quantum~coherence, and quantum~interference. Entangled waves self~other interfere, while unentangled waves pass through one another without affective interference. Simply, wave interference occurs among entangled waves. Entangled phase interference superposes waves. Superposition of entangled water waves 'go rogue' due incompressibility of partially quantum~coherent water which tentatively 'self~holds' its 'shape.'"
Doug - 21Jan2008.
Following is political humor by Doug. It is, intensionally, immensely tasteless! Do not read this if you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton!
You have been warned!!! Doug.
"Absurdity" is a term pseudo-brights use to describe what they do not understand.
To pseudo-brights if you say something "absurd" you are a fool.
For example, some pseudo-bright may say, "Quantum reality is absurd!"
Einstein and Feynman both implied quantum reality is "absurd."
Doug - 21Jan2008.
Doug calls pseudo-brights, "DIQheads." That is, "Dialectical IQ heads." DIQheads use a tragedy of commons sense to 'reason.'
Doug disrespects DIQheads, yet Doug respects DIQheads' rights to be DIQheads.
To Doug, WJC and HC are DIQheads for a plethora of 'reasons.'
Example? Her pseudo-brightness, HC, has 'experience' facilitating Monica giving Wullard's DIQ head! While pseudo-bright DIQhead WJC claimed, "I did not have sex with that woman!"
Do you really want these pseudo-brights in USA's White House?
If you vote for HC and WJC are you bright? Pseudo-bright? If she wins, which 'head' will she give USA? William's? Hers? Oh! Yeah, wrong: both!
Doug's starting to have fantasies about calling White House to make reservations for "an hour with Hillary."
Nah! That's too long!
Perhaps we might get our $20mil per hour prorated? Hmmm...
HotMeme HC + Whitehouse = Our-bad. HotMeme.
Whoops! Unless you're talking "hot chocolate," which doesn't talk o' lot.
FYI, WikiAnswer says that US's first gay president was James Buchanan.
Let's elect Obama now in 2008-2009, and instead of Hillary, make Michelle Obama USA's first female president in 2017!
Doug and Beth have decided to support Obama! We, just last week ~7-8Jan2008, sent Obama's campaign Doug's December, 2007 'social security' check as a donation. Allowing a meme of 'social security' to help pay for Obama's election as President of USA seems apropos to us. We want to set an example for other middle-westerners to help Obama!
Doug is of Irish and Dutch descent with some Judaic-French on Dad's side. Beth is of Slavic-German descent. Our parents' parents'...parents immigrated to USA. Some of them voted for Abe Lincoln. To us, a vote for Obama is a retro vote for Abe Lincoln.
Go Barack, go young man, with our heartfelt deepest hopes for you and your family.
Doug and Beth - 15Jan2007
"As it turned out, the propitious times never arrived. On the contrary, the individuals in the Gnostic Christian communities who might have made the difference became the object of one of the greatest witch-hunts1 in human history. Swept up in a broadening net of Church repression, they disappeared into one of the anonymous eddies of history. The passage of time has been anything but kind because the magnitude of our loss has yet to be recognized, which explains why the spiritual impoverishment of the West is ongoing. Nearly twenty centuries after Jesus first spoke the words, they lie on the page like some cuneiform text, in wait of the happy hour when Christianity will finally rediscover their meaning." Doug's footnote.
Page 74, last paragraph, chapter 6,
Note that Gaffney was raised 'c a t h o l i c,' and is now a gnostic.
To which of Naassene-Essene Jesus' words is Gaffney referring?
Same words which Robert M. Pirsig's MoQ shows and tells us! Same words quantum reality shows and tells us! "Iht issi ihn us individually and individually wæ aræ ihn Iht!"
Iht tells us and shows us that each of us, individual by individual, is uniquely full of our own spiritual qua, individual by individual responsible for our own interpretation of Iht. Each of us is individually adept at emerqing our own individual spiritual perspectives. When we look for Iht in our selves we will find Iht ihn our selves.
Modern 'c a t h o l i c s m' and 'p r o t e s t a n t i s m' both teach, socially, dialectically and dogmatically, that "We are socially separate from It and It is socially separate from us."
They teach us that we need religious training, their training, to make sure we "get it right,' that is, their way.
What does that enable? A few ruling many!
What does that disable? Individual choice! C a t h o l i c s hate choice! They call choice "heresy." Why? Iht, gn¤stic choice, disables their dialectical concept of top down hierarchical religious power of a few over many!
(It is crucial to observe how 'democracy' is a socially approved process which c a t h o l i c a l l y 'chooses' which few (the elect) will rule which many (the electorate). Notice how democracy is actually a c a t h o l i c OSFA EOOO dichon(elect, electorate) means of empowering a few to rule many (not serve many; were elect to serve many they could- would-not tell any individual "I will hold you in contempt"). Democratic 'election' is only a tentative empowerment of an electorate which loses its power at the moment of election. Walter Bagehot perhaps said it best like this, "Under a Presidential government, a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns." Gnosticism empowers individuals individually to retain their virtue and influence at all times, not just at "the moment of election." Keep your individual Quality! Exercise your natural freedom of choice. Learn how to be gn¤stic. Doug.)
Democracy is a kind of sectarian 'c a t h o l i c i s m:' Socially objective hierarchy and 'rational' dyadic demos will separation of identical human cog object hive drones. Numbers without spirit!
Democracy: EOOO OSFA socialism, folks!
Organized religion tells us and shows us that we are all 'equal,' and in our equality and dogmatic socialization we tragically, by social "design," commonly become individually inept. Organized religion turns all of its ant hill hive drones, as Daniel C. Dennett says, "Into helpless innocents."
Mullahs do it. Popes do it. What? Organize many as one! Monism! Monasticism!
How can you detect monism? Its social adherents talk like this, "Our way or the highway," "Rule of common law," "There is no common ground," "I'm the decider," "I am a natural leader," "I have experience which will allow me to lead all of you as a society in a common, socially approved way (i.e., a few ruling many) which you will like or we (i.e., 'democratic' society, er, um sovereignty) will hold you in contempt."
Gnosticism teaches us two of many memes we can use to abort religious and social monism:
"Monism is deceit,"
"Principle rules something not itself."
(See our discussion on unification too.)
As you may choose to perceive, gn¤sticism works against political monism as well as it does against religious monism. Gnosticism says, "N¤ individual, n¤ group, n¤ society is your individual sovereign elected and otherwise." That is why organized religions and societies both hate and fear gn¤sis.
Essene Gn¤stic Jesus said each of us is responsible first for ourselves. When we achieve some mastery of that, then we may be partially qualified to respectfully serve other individuals as individuals. Any social organization kills individual spirit by imposing ESQ on individual thought and behavior.
Latter is what Gaffney refers as "magnitude of our loss," above.
Rule of law and social organization literally drives out individual Quality by socially normalizing, by socially 'defining,' both individual thought and behavior.
Here, a door opens if you are willing to sense it. Social normalization, social 'law,' social 'definition,' socially enforced concrete absence of change borne deadly of pastistic 'experience,' social 'state'-ic monism...literally is a tragedy of commons sense! Catholic, democratic deceit! Principles ruling not themselves. Doug.
Those who use religion to attain office, are in Doug's view, least worthy of social service. Why? They want to impose their monistic agendas on many. Religion is a monistic agenda, period. So are most social patterns of 'value.' War and evangelism are Bu()sh()'s social patterns of value. Dialectical 'science' is a social pattern of value. Social welfare and health insurance are HC's social patterns of value.
Should those of us who are 'well' have to pay for those who are voluntarily 'ill?' But if we agree, we leap into a catholic, democratic fire of making those who are voluntarily ill...'law breakers.'
Society, dialectical society, is inept! Do you get that, people? Until you commence understanding that you make yourself a slave to its tragedies of common sense.
As far as we know, no gn¤stics are running for office, but if they were, they would be doing so on a basis of individuals and individual self-knowledge, individual-self-other-respect, and individual responsibilities. If we, individually take care of ourselves, individually manage our own local and our local families' perspectives of 'wellness,' and 'illness,' most other issues resolve quite naturally without political and social 'state'-ic preintervention. Gn¤sis simply denies any social organization any rights to social-self-perpetuity. Gn¤sis doesn't take those social rights away. Individuals simply do n¤t use services of social organizations. And as we move toward gn¤sis, this is what will naturally attrite classical socialism. Social dependence minimizes since gn¤stic individuals take care of themselves.
To Doug...Michelle Obama, whether she knows it or n¤t, is gn¤stic! She speaks of "power of individuals." We like that!
If someone calls that "individual greed," ask them whether our society currently is "a mountain of social greed." Which is better? Individual greed? Social greed?
Is there just one me? Are there many individuals? Is their "just one" us? (Is there "just one us?") Which is better?
Doug infers that Mae-wan Ho writes in her the Rainbow and the Worm, that quantum~society is superior any other 'form' of classical society. Why? Quantum~society achieves a quantum~coherence of many. What is omniffering here is Mae-wan Ho claims that quantum~coherence allows individual freedom of choice and individual autonomy in a quantum~coherent society. Most of us cannot grasp what Mae-wan means! Similar Gaffney's remarks above, we have been carefully taught to adhere EOOO classical dialectical thingking.
When we gradually learn to do that, society becomes an emergent property of quantum~individual social coherence. A classical need for outside-, other-direction, by a few, evaporates. Outside direction by a few is a huge classical thingking Error! Failure of classically mechanical 'Artificial Intelligence' when other-directed is a tell of what Mae-wan wants us to learn. Tom Petzinger's New Pioneers are coherently self-directing. Winning sports teams are coherently self-directing. Winning corporate organizations are coherently self-directing.
Outside direction of government by a few sovereign many is a classical approach which is failing massively. Democratic society is a failure! It is inept, classically inept. Why? It offers outside direction of many by a few. Error! Its social greed is boundless. Its social patterns of 'value' are abundantly misplaced and illserving: e.g., earmarks, line items, 'social' security, a monistic education system, a monistic law by lobbyists 'legal' system, war and welfare.
When we say "It's time for change," outside direction of many by a few is what we are talking about, folks.
There is only one requirement: each of us must commence thinking and acting as individuals who are superior to all of our social servants. No elected social servant is sovereign any electorate individual.
Stop supporting any social organization which doesn't gn¤stically support what you value as an individual.
That is another way of saying what Essene Gn¤stic Jesus said, "Do not do what you hate."
Compare that to what social organizations say, "Do not do what we hate."
Former is individual gn¤sticism. Latter is social monism.
It's that simple.
Doug - 4-7Jan2008.
(For example...if all of us do not vote, no one can be elected...a direct example of many individuals choosing to disable 'democratic monism.' But some rope a dope pope would elect himself...right? "I'm the decider." Not if we individually shew 'it' away.)
(Gives abundant semantic head to Voltaire's "The first divine was the first rogue who met the first fool." Gnostics are n¤t fools, folks! Gn¤sis means wisdom, individual wisdom, n¤t 'social wisdom.' Society cann¤t think, so how could society ever be wise? Society only runs on automatic, unthinking 'rule of law' based automatic. That's why society writes laws! So society 'knows' which legal program to formally, without thinking, automatically run. Society calls 'law' "common sense." But 'common sense' is ordinary sense (i.e., gn¤stically hylic-psychic sense which compared to pneumatic sense is unwise). Individuals want extraordinary sense, not a classical OSFA tragedy of socially perpetual and state-ic 'common sense.' A quantum~society does n¤t 'elect' precedented 'common social sense,' rather it dynamically~adaptively emerges stochastically extraordinary ensemble~individual sensings. As an individual do you ever do any task identically across varying times and places? Stupidly classical society claims you can. But what worked last time probably won't work this time, will it? In order for any common process to 'always work,' nothing can change, can it? Repeatable process demands determinate sameness, doesn't it? Why can't we predict weather and global warming-cooling? Reality is indeterminate, naturally. To do Total Quality Control on weather and guarantee its classical sameness, we have to control it, right? Can we do that? Do you as an individual really want that? )
Do you believe group rights are above individual rights? How? Why? When? Where? Who? What? Thinkq about it. Avoid thingking about it.
Can any group be 'whole?' Can any group be 'monolythic?' Can any group be unified? What is consensus? Is consensus 'true?' Truth? H5W?
What is social positivism? Is social positivism certainty? H5W?
Is a group above any individual in said group? Are all individuals in said group above said group?
Is a group above any individual in any other group? Is a group above any other group? H5W?
Is groupness more valid based upon group size? Is groupness more valid based upon group beliefs?
Is individual extraordinary sense above any group's tragedy of commons sense? Can any group assess any individual's extraordinary sense? On what bases?
What metric(s) garner group authority?
What metric(s) garner individual authority?
Who decides which concord is the concord? H5W?
In your personal judgment, having pondered Doug's above queries, do you find monism seductive?
Does monism have better alternatives? H5W?
Doug - 10Jan2008.
December, 2007 through November, 2008 TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News
You are here:
|Topics:||Changings in Quantonics' Airings,
Chautauqua II: Granger on John Dewey as Comparable Robert M. Pirsig
|Doug and Beth Choose to support Barack Obama,
Chautauqua III: Granger on John Dewey as Comparable Robert M. Pirsig
February, 2008 News:
On Doug's and Beth's Choosings, Chancings, and Changings to Support Barack Obama ...
Early in January, 2008 Beth and Doug decided to support Obama.
Biggest reason for Doug is that Obama is real. He is us. He is US. He is USA! Biggest reason for Beth is that she doesn't trust Hillary, and she finds most Republican't politicos quasi-criminal. Both of us will be proud when Barack is elected. We will be ashamed of our country, otherwise.
Doug listened to Michelle Obama speak. To Doug she's gnostic, quantum~gnostic. She doesn't ask "What will we do?" rather she asks "What will you do?" She believes in free~will individualism, and individual rights. In Doug's political imaginings Michelle will follow Barack as USA's first female president! Bravo! 2008 is a lesson plan for countless futurings.
Doug has written here, and he will abide his own change of heart, that he will never, ever knowingly vote for a Republican again.
We are going to support Obama until he gets a Democratic nomination.
We're sending our $ to Obama and hope that his run against Hillary is successful. If not this time, surely he'll be prepared even better for a run in 2012 and 2016.
Folks! Heads up! It's timings for individual changings in all hearts of Humankind!
On Continuation of Doug's Chapter 2 Review of David A. Granger's DPatAoL ...
|December, 2007||January, 2008||February, 2008||March, 2008||
a prerequisite to:
a prerequisite to:
||a prerequisite to:||a prerequisite to:|
|Installment Topic:||Does Hume
"embrace a radical scepticism"
as David A. Granger writes?1
|Does Doug Ostensibly
Approve Granger's Choice
of Dewey1 as a Pirsigean
|John Dewey's Unwillingness to Sacrifice Science to Achieve Pirsigean Value~Quality.|
We pick up in Chapter 2 where last month's ellipsis left off...
Our Chautauqua III subtitle above tells our whole story here. Dewey writes much about quality but, like Bohm, he says we have to keep 'science' in order to bring quantity to service in our control of nature. To Doug, this seems totally anti-Pirsigean, even though Dewey says a lot of good stuff about qualitative reality. Dewey is still, bottom line, a coprolytic 'tard of classical science! We will offer, farther below (yes Jamal...), some of those Dewey-quantitative vis-à-vis Dewey-qualitative comparatives from Dr. Douglas Sloan's paper which we refer immediately.
Before we continue our review of Chapter 2 allow us to offer a link to D. Sloan's 'Dewey's Solution' annotations (also see, e.g., Goethean Science - Doug - 31Jan2008) of John Dewey's Project for 'Saving the Appearances': Exploring Some of Its Implications for Education and Ethics.
Doug finds that reference valuable. It addresses a "dominant problem of modern life:" How does science bridge fact and value?
Doug's mentors, heroes and sheroes all share a quantum memeo that HotMeme "...fact is in value and value is in fact." HotMeme. You will see in D. Sloan's annotations above, how John Dewey partially gets that, but similarly David Bohm, Dewey claims we have to retain separability and independence for 'objective science' to be viable. Closest Dewey gets to Pirsig's Dynamic Quality is scientific motion of objects as a function of time, and via his assumptions, in our opinion correct, that evolution and its creative processes are real. Again, similar Bohm, Dewey's views, unlike Pirsig's, do not beg quantum flux as quintessential any world view of reality. Trouble is, right here in Jordan Uru, quantum flux issi intrinsically subjective: always changing, always changing all, always multiplicate, only partially and apparitionally 'unified.' Dewey's 'scientific reality' may be determinate, it may be stoppably measured, it may be objectively, though provisionally, objectively assessed as true, verifiable, and valid. Quantum reality denies Dewey's classical 'scientific' assumptions. Quantum reality says all truth is never more than "ensemble stochastic," and to make matters even more challenging all subsystems in each ensemble are dynamic processes too...ensembles in their own essence: all truth, quantumly, issi always uncertain at all scales of reality. Quantumly then Dewey's classical science notions are mostly bogus. Agreeing with Granger, though, Sloan does show us glimmers of a pre quantum Dewey. Dewey in some ruder and cruder ways, and similar both Bohm and Kuhn, was creeping up on quantum reality, maybe without realizing it.
If Doug were to take Sloan's annotations above and apportion those notes across Pirsig, Dewey, Kuhn, and Bohm, Doug expects we would have a four-way Venn of shared notions and memes. Dewey and Kuhn would be more alike. Pirsig and Bohm would be more alike. Using quantum dynamicity as a scale top down we would show Pirsig, Bohm, Kuhn, and Dewey. Using classical state-icity as a scale top down our list would simply invert itself. What about quantum~middle~inclusion...
...compared to classical middle-exclusion? Again, Pirsig and Bohm would be more alike, but Bohm, Kuhn, and Dewey all rely on middle-exclusion to keep 'objective,' formal-mechanical classical science afloat.
"But Doug, They all have to share something, otherwise people like David A. Granger, et al., wouldn't spend valuable research effort and time studying them, would they?" Agree! All of them recognize how important quality and nature's mostly qualitative aspects are. However, there is a huge bone of contention awaiting uninitiated! "What, Doug?" Dewey, Kuhn, and Bohm would agree that classical 'science's' major purpose is to "Allow humankind to 'control' nature." Our view of Pirsig is that he would claim that purpose "ill-chosen," and mostly bogus on its face. Why? Mother Nature as DQ (i.e., "pure Quality") issi ineffable. In order to control something humans have to understand it. Pirsig would say that humans have qua to partially describe DQ, but they will never understand it. All we can ever hope for are partial analogues of nature, none of them can ever be classically, scientifically, ideally, realistically 'true.' But Pirsig might qualify that and claim that even humans can recognize Value without understanding it. If Doug had his way, that would be our founding description of what we mean when we use that wonderful word, "aesthetic." Doug can love blues and jazz music without understanding it, without stopping it and cutting it up into tiny analytical pieces. Doug can appreciate Michael Jordan's fabulous B-ball skills without ever picking up a B-ball let alone attempting to put it through a hoop three meters up and 10-15 meters away. All humans use aesthetics everyday to qualitatively sort, select, and choose. All that picking and choosing is Value-full and almost totally fact-free. But how does classical science want us to thingk? Fact full and value free. That's why so many of us are beginning to agree with Clifford Geertz: "Scientism is mostly just bluff." Classical science, despite its claims and self-accolades, is almost totally bogus. Why? People like Dewey, Kuhn, and Bohm believe that dialectic is valid! It isn't!
Pirsig is among those, like Geertz, Mae-wan Ho, Henri Louis Bergson, Heraclitus, Zeno, d'Espagnat, Heinz Pagels, Julian Jaynes, Nick Herbert, Danah Zohar, Gary Zukav, William James, Fritjof Capra, Kafatos & Nadeau, Richard Powers, Voltaire, Gnostics, others, and countless folk of whom Doug is unaware...who intuit a genuinely aesthetic, genuinely qualitative quantum reality. HotMeme Dialectic is antithetic aesthetics. HotMeme. Unless ... you love social patterns of 'value:' war and hatred.
What is academe doing about that? They're still teaching dialectic and classical science! Duh!
It just makes Doug want to, have to gag...
Comparing Pirsig and Dewey (John), makes Doug want to gag!
Comparing Pirsig and Geertz, yes. Pirsig and Bergson, yes. Pirsig and Zeno of Elea, yes. Pirsig and Heraclitus, yes. Pirsig and Bohm, yes. Pirsig and Bohr, yes. Pirsig and Mae-wan Ho, YES, YES, YES! Pirsig and Jim Baggott, yes! Pirsig and Fritjof Capra, yes. Pirsig and Dewey, gag, gag, gag... Comparing Dewey and Pirsig, for Doug, is n¤t aesthetic in a similar sense as comparing quantum science and classical science is n¤t aesthetic.
Comparing Pirsig and Dewey is, for Doug n¤n aesthetic, like comparing Mozart and rap. Like comparing Tootsie Rolls and DeBrand chocolates. Like comparing Louis XIII cognac and cheap brandy.
Again, Pirsig is, to Doug, Earth's greatest philosopher to date. John Dewey was a great scientist, and thus by implication may n¤t be a great philosopher. Science and philosophy are enemies on a battlefield of thought. Classical science is dead as Horgan warned. Pirsig explains why science is dead. Dewey would never understand that since he needed dialectic to do his science. Just to show you what we mean here, let's do those Dewey-quantitative vav Dewey-qualitative comparisons now:
This is a full text quote of paragraph b, 'Dewey's Solution,' from Dr. Douglas Sloan's paper:
These, 23-41, are page numbers associated with Sloan's ReVision article quotes of Dewey, shown below.
For Dewey, the task of saving the appearances had to be carried out without sacrificing science as the way of knowing in the modern world. This was critical because:
i - as organized intelligence, science, for Dewey, was also the possibility and the safeguard of human freedom;
ii - biology was paradigmatic for him. The notion of organism provided a scientific underpinning for unity and furthermore, the notion of the interaction of the organism in its environment offered an analogy to describe the nature and role of thinking in human life; and,
iii - science in the modern era had, as nothing else, affected the whole of human experience. The worlds of culture, of social institutions, of mans relations, and his own self-understanding had been, and, more importantly continue to be, decisively reshaped by scientific discovery and its associated technological applications. p.25
For Dewey there could not be a two realm theory of truth: a realm of knowledge defined by science and a realm of values vouchsafed by feeling, belief, or tradition, but cut off from knowledge. p.25 [Scientific knowledge is state-ic, stuck. Qualitative Value is dynamic. To 'science' dynamism is objective unitemporal motion. To Pirsig dynamism is absolute flux AKA DQ itself. Science is about quantitative 'state,' while MoQ is about qualitative flux.]
As long as the environment permits, the organism repeats its activity habitually. A change in the environment produces an obstacle to habitual behavior, and a response is demanded. For the human being, part of the necessary response is to recognize the situation for the problem it is and envisage ways of resolving it satisfactorily. p.26 [Change nature; change human adaptation?]
Knowing, for Dewey, is a method of gaining control over an otherwise unstable, or too stable, environment... Knowing is a way of employing empirical occurrences with respect to increasing power to direct the consequences which flow from things. In short, for Dewey, -knowledge is power. This means, further, that science, as the method par excellence of instrumental reason, is concerned solely with establishing, effecting, and experimentally controlling those relationships of cause and effect that will most efficiently ensure the desired aims. p.26
For Dewey, science is important not primarily for its content and conclusions about reality but as a method for controlling experience of reality... inquiry is participatory. Dewey rejected objectivistic conceptions of knowing, or what he called -the spectator view of knowing. All knowing... involves an active interaction between knower and the known in which each affects the other in the process. p.26. [ Doug's problems in that last bold blue statement are: a) - 'knowing' as dialectical state, i.e., a know-ledge of static 'data,' b) - 'interaction' as middle-exclusive formal-mechanical 'scientific' 'forces,' c) - 'between' as a classical tell of objective independence, which in quantum reality is a pure and simple classical bogosity, d) - 'knower and known' as Dewey's anthropocentricity, by comparison and for example, neurons can be viewed as "knowing 'knowers and unknowns,'" e) - there is no 'the known,' 'the other,' and 'the process,' there are only multiplicate pluralistic ensembles of many interpenetrating fluxially many flux ensembles, and finally, f) - Dewey probably thought of 'process' as a formal mechanical objective 'set' of sequential actions; that description of 'process' is inviable and invalid in quantum~reality. See pr¤cæss. Doug - 16Feb2008.]
Moreover, inquiry for Dewey is always in itself valuation. There is no such thing as value free thinking... Because by its nature, Dewey's conception of thinking is purposive, values, far from being extrinsic to the process of means, ends, consequences attained, and further consequences sought are present at every point.. p.27
Science is made possible by the ideals that pervade, sustain, and guide it...including cooperation in the scientific community, respect for evidence, experimental openness, and so forth. That is, ends as values ought not to be abstracted from the larger context of experience. p.27
Inquiry, finally, requires a context. And the context is experience itself. [Sensory bandwidth, even with 'scientific' accoutrements, is tiny compared to nature's full spectrum.] It is only an awareness of the wider context and a taking of it fully into account [Impossible!], for example, that keep instrumentalism from collapsing into a crass utilitarianism. p.27. ['Scientific instrumentalism' is dialectic formality. As such, scientific instrumentalism is, definitively, "crassly utilitarian." Doug - 16Feb2008.]
At its most basic, Dewey's experience is precognitive, what he called primary experience. Experience means primarily not knowledge, but ways of doing and suffering; it is primarily a process of undergoing. p.27. [However, we must remind ourselves relentlessly that our experience is implicitly and intrinsically bandwidth limited in any 'sense' of detecting directly and experientially higher rates of actual and n¤nactual Planck rate emerscent quantum~fluxings:
Primary experience is qualitative and relational... Primary experience is irreducible. Primary experience is participative.... The organism and nature are in constant interplay and interaction, and any separation of the two can only be admitted as a limited abstraction, useful, perhaps, for certain purposes but misleading if taken as full reality. p.28
Finally, because of its holism, experience is at bottom aesthetic. Aesthetic experience is the grasp of qualities in their immediacy, their wholeness, and their harmonious interconnectedness. p.28
All that science deals with is nature in its instrumental character. Science does not even give us knowledge of nature in her inner being; it only gives us control of nature. p.29. [This, for Doug, is science's great lie, its great bluff: a massive and intentional deign to feign. To control nature 'science' would have to be nature, but even nature cannot control itself. Classical 'science,' c. 2008, cann¤t even begin to sense, let alone control, regions of flux shown above as outside 'science's' bandwidth. 'Science' is just plain arrogant to claim, in general, that it can (even should) control nature. HotMeme "If 'science' cann¤t 'certainly' prevent mundane accidents, how can it claim to control an intrinsically uncertain nature?" HotMeme. Doug - 16Feb2008.]
Science is not a final thing. The final thing is appreciation and use of things of direct experience. p.29
Dewey's attempt: It showed that modern science has limits set to it, limits within which it has great power and potential usefulness but when modern science is extended beyond these limits, it is misleading and destructive. The proper domain of science, in Dewey's view, is precisely the quantitative and mechanical dimensions of reality. [But quantum~reality is neither quantitative nor mechanical! Quantum~reality is absolute flux! Relentless change. We cann¤t stop it to quantifiably 'measure' it. Best we can do is to 'omnitor' it, period. 'Science' is bogus due its wr¤ng presumptions that reality is classical: stoppable, independent, quantifiable, etc. Classical 'science' is bogus, folks! Doug - 16Feb2008.] Because every aspect of experience has this dimension within it, Dewey urged the extension of science as the method of knowing and thus gaining direction and control over the qualitative dimensions most desirable to human welfare. Nature has mechanisms, he wrote, This forms the content of the objects of physical science for it fulfills the instrumental office to be performed by science. But it is a false extrapolation from this to conclude that nature is a mechanism and only a mechanism. pp. 29-30. [It is apparent here that Dewey agrees with Bohm re: a split twixt quantitative reality and qualitative reality. Bohm calls 'quantitative reality,' his "explicate order." Bohm calls 'qualitative reality,' his "implicate order." Dewey says "quantitative is scientific," while "qualitative is non scientific." What both of these genuine geniuses fail to fathom is that quantum reality's flux imposes upon us a need to see that "all is in all." Quantity is in quality and quality is in quantity, as Pirsig wrote, "...without contradiction." Doug extrapolates Pirsig to say that "Quantum reality is without any classical contradictions." But that is, from any classical scientific conspective "absurd!" Why? Classical science relies on 'contradiction' to disprove hypotheses. Without contradiction, classical science fails! Do you grasp what Doug just wrote? If so, do you grasp its massive importance for humanity? If so, why are you just sitting there allowing 'science' to arrogantly make all its stupid and arrogant claims? Are you going to continue to ignore this, to push it under a handy carpet's edge? What will you do? Doug - 16Feb2008.]
Selective emphasis is necessary for all reflective, intelligent inquiry, for selection from the total has to be made, the problem isolated [Impossible!], and abstractive analysis [Impossible!] brought to bear upon it. Every inquiry proceeds from some kind of prior selection and abstraction from the whole. But this fallacy of selective emphasis is committed when science is identified with reality itself... Dewey's solution underscores the absolute necessity that instrumental reason as embodied in science must have a context not itself. Without such a context, science runs amok. Equally clear is that this context for quantitative, mechanical instrumental knowing must be qualitative through and through. p.30
The inside of nature and experience, the intrinsic nature of events is revealed in experience as the immediately felt quality of things. And while science itself cannot reveal this inwardness, it is the qualitative inside of things that is the fundamental, indispensable context for all science and its applications that are to be humanly beneficial. p.30
Nature becomes fair game... for being taken apart, rearranged, and used up, without regard for its own inwardness, which is denied [which 'science' denies] to it. p.31
The felt appreciation of the other is surely a good. If, however, it does not include, as integral to the experience, the possibility of a genuine knowing of the other that is more than instrumental, can relations between persons in Dewey's scheme involve anything other than either manipulative control of the other or an equally exploitative, aesthetic enjoyment of the other?... Such a personal knowledge (knowing the other as person) would require as its essential condition a capacity for change in the knower; an ability to enter empathetically into an understanding of the other in his or her own right. Such a change would not even entertain the question of controlling the other. On the contrary, it would most likely arise from a willingness to relinquish control and to take on a vulnerability to the other (the more complete the vulnerability, the more penetrating the knowing). p.31
Doug's bold blue shows Doug's vehement omnisagreement with Dewey. Doug's bold green shows Doug's recognition of a few Pirsigesque Deweyisms. Our brackets to make quantum~relevant intra-text commentary.
There isn't time now, since we are using this as a Feuilleton Chautauqua portion of a monthly TQS News, but we intend to do detail commentary on most paragraphs in this paragraph b) quote of Sloan's paper. Doug - 31Jan2008.
For Doug, Sloan fairly balances Dewey's pro Pirsigean narrative and Dewey's pro scientific instrumentalism as scientific hegemony over nature. That is what we are attempting to compare in Chautauqua III review segment of Granger's book, Dewey, Pirsig, and the Art of Living.
Qualitative (i.e., quantum~) Philosophy claims, as Pirsig was keenly aware, that dialectic is just and simply and demonstrably bogus, in spades! Classical 'scientific' reality depends upon and is unreal dialectic. We cann¤t, must n¤t use classical dialectic to describe a n¤n static quantum~reality. When we do, we remove DQ from whatever we are attempting to describe. When we use dialectic to describe quantum~reality quanton(DQ,SQ) becomes dichon(SQ, SQ)! Doug - 13Jan2008.
Gag, gag, gag,...
"If you are still gagging Doug why are you pursuing Granger's work?"
Granger's opus is (and Sloan's paper above, et al., are) a tell of a potentially enormous tsunami of academic change! When Doug read that Pirsig is excited about Granger's work, Doug scratched his head in wonder...but how do most dams fail? A tiny hole...grows...and grows... How do avalanches commence? A single snow flake, a tiny pebble, a drop of water, a single footfall,... Singlets becoming massive ensemblings... Tiny ensembles becoming massive ensemblings... Quantum chaos loosing butterflies' naïve-realist-abstracted locality con(m)straints...
If Pirsig is right, and he is more often than n¤t...then we need to squeeze every last drop of opportunity out of Granger's work to help academe embark on a n¤væl qualitative~wisdom Chautauqua of its own.
So here we are...and it is, absent gagging, fun...and Granger is doing what he perhaps does best: teach. And we are learning. So far Granger has us changing our views of Hume. We sense he is changing our views of John Dewey. And we are becoming better. We are practicing meliorism! MoQ's essence is meliorism! Quantum~meleiorism. Meliorism is moral: aesthetic!
Many of you do n¤t grasp quantum, yet. So our Chautauqua offers you means of your own incremental~learning embarkation. And Doug is attempting to keep it grounded in enough of what you already grasp to allow you great comfort in your own personal quantum progress, however great and small its melioristic increments may be. MoQ's meliorism, quantumly, is moral: aesthetic. A Li~la dance of divine DQ and mundane SQ! Millennium III gn¤sis at its best.
On pages 64 and 65 of his DPatAoL, Granger quotes Pirsig's ZMM and Pirsig's Lila. Doug wants to quote Granger's comments surrounding those Pirsig quotes and show you how Granger's dialectic simply destroys Pirsig's opus. Granger can't be intentionally destroying Pirsig's opus, really...but for Doug he does. Let's see why Doug says that. Let's quote several paragraphs of Granger and Pirsig and comment on them side-by-side, sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph.
|Page||Quotes of Granger's DPatAoL||Doug's Comments on Granger's Quotes of Pirsig|
|64:||"Because of its customary mission to locate absolute foundations for knowledge, metaphysics initially raised a number of thorny issues for Pirsig and Dewey. Pirsig's concerns were in large part precipitated by 'Phaedrus's' restless eclecticism, in particular, by his irregular mixture of Eastern and Western philosophy. They had then lived on in Pirsig's own philosophical attachment to Zen and Native American mysticism. The central problem, as Pirsig later recalls, had at one time seemed beyond resolution:||Doug effaced all Granger footnotes.|
Granger quotes Pirsig:
'Mystics will tell you that once you've opened the door to metaphysics you can say good-bye to any genuine understanding of reality. [Dialectical] Thought is not a path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because when you try to use thought to approach something that is prior to thought your thinking does not carry you toward that something. It carries you away from it. To define something is to subordinate it to a temple of intellectual relationships. And when you do that you destroy real understanding. (Lila 64)'
Our brackets. Our bold and color.
Doug claims you can remedy classical thought by throwing away dialectic and animating your thinkqing quantumly!
Granger's quote of Pirsig is potent and important. Doug's Bold red and brackets added intentionally to said quote.
Pirsig in both ZMM and Lila was sending (still is sending) a warning clarion to dialectical scientists and religionists everywhere. Dialectical thought will destroy your enterprise whatever its endeavor. Dialectical thought is a thoroughfare to self-destruction, a guaranteed means to self-extinction.
To show you how little Pirsig's red bold text is understood, let alone fathomed, University of Chicago just announced a multidiscipline effort to 'Define Wisdom.' They will do it using antique dialectical thought and classical 'scientific' rational reason. A clear and present message of UChic's imminent demise.
Pirsig's bold red text tells us when we 'define' anything...we make it gnostically dead.
"Doug, what is 'gnostically dead?'"
Gnosis is wisdom. Gnostics believe wisdom evolves and compenetrates reality's whole mental fabric. In that regard, our best and most recent example of a gnostic is biologist~philosopher Henri Louis Bergson who wrote, paraphrased, "Classicists suffer two anti-gnostic delusions:
Bergson was saying quite wisely that reality cann¤t be stable since it is in active evolutionary processings, and independent objects lack qua to, are incapable of any dynamic evolutionary processings. Bergson also makes it clear to his readers that, number
So, when we take those three gn¤stic observations as bases of a quantum~pragmadigm shear, we break dialectic massively and totally. For that Doug must claim here and now that Bergson is, "The wisest person of which Doug is aware that has lived on planet Earth, ever."
Dialectic died when Henri Louis Bergson wrote his opus.
However, c. 2008, only a handful of people realize that.
If folk at UChic understood those three Bergsonian bases of gn¤stic thinkqing, they never, ever would have oxymoronically titled their endeavor Defining Wisdom.
Sad...dialectic: an ultimate n¤n aesthetic.
When Doug first read Granger's quoted paragraph in about April, 1992, Doug did n¤t 'understand' extremely complex philosophical issues involved in Pirsig's words.
What Doug sees now, after about a ten year hiatus from any detail fathoming of both ZMM and Lila, is that language has always (at least since Homer...then Parmenides, etc.) been dialectical in Western Thought. We know now c. 2008 that dialectic is what mystics found 'wrong' with Western Thought. Indeed, Western dialectical thought stops reality. Dialectical thought removes quality (in a Pirsigean sense) from all Western words and thoughts.
Pirsig shows that phenomenally well in our bold red of his words.
What Doug understands now c. 2008 is we can look at thought classically, and we can look at it as Pirsig suggested:
Classical dialectic turns off Quality by zeroing quanta's h-bar. This is what we mean by classical metaphysics.
Quantum rhetoric turns on Quality by enabling quanta's h-bar. This is what we mean by quantum~mætaphysihcs. Quantonics remediates classical 'metaphysics' to quantum~mætaphysihcs so readers can view them alternatively like this:
Granger does n¤t understand what Doug just wrote. To him there is just one kind of metaphysics: dialectical. Pirsig pointed out how important it was for us to forgo dialectic in favor of rhetoric. Doug refined it to make it more compatible with "the new science," quantum science. Doug added language remediation, coined terms, etc. to allow us to use a language which forgoes bogus dialectic.
Recall how Jon had a similar problem with 'virtue.' He thought there was only one kind of 'virtue:' dialectical virtue. Doug explained to Jon how 'virtue' without DQ is ESQ. However when we add DQ to SQ 'virtue,' we get a quantum rhetorical vihrtuæ. Again:
|64 to 65:||"Since 'Phaedrus' viewed Quality as the preintellectual and unknowable 'central reality of mysticism,' the very notion of a Metaphysics of Quality entailed 'a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity' (Ibid.). 'Phaedrus's' tragic mental illness was evidence of just how fraught with contradiction such a path could be. This was particularly true when metaphysics was used to discriminate various levels of being through a process of dialectical definition, as plainly was the case with the Greeks.||
Granger shows us in this paragraph that he views all as dialectical. To call MoQ, "...a contradiction in terms..." is to expose one's own dialectical center. What Granger does not grasp, and probably will never grasp is that MoQ is mystical. H5W? Herrigel and Bergson gn¤stically would say, "Pirsig's MoQ is in DQ and DQ is in Pirsig's MoQ."
Granger, though, will insist classically, dialectically, agnostically that "DQ is 'not' in MoQ and MoQ is 'not' in DQ."
Granger's use of "logical absurdity" also begs his own brick-headed stuckness in his own dialectism. MoQ as a philosophical parent of quantum~reality isn't and cann¤t be classically, dialectically 'logical.' Dialect depends upon stoppability, stability, objectivity, independence and objective negation. All of those classical notions are simply bogus in quantum~reality, and bogus in Pirsig's MoQ. Dialectic needs a notion of 'excluded-middle' (borne of logical independence and vice versa) to work. There are n¤ classical 'excluded-middles' in quantum~reality. That is what Bergson meant when said, "Classicists are deluded to believe that objects are independent of one another." (Reality is quantum~flux, and quantum~flux compenetrates quantum~flux to various, e.g., quantum~interference, greater and lesser extents, ubiquitously.)
Granger's use of "contradiction" too shows his dialectism. Without dialectic's objective negation one may n¤t establish "contradiction."
Those of you familiar with Quantonics have read about John Forbes Nash. Nash had a schizophrenic breakdown similar Phædrus' own. Neandertal dialectical psychologists-psychiatrists 'performed' ECS annihilation on Forbes too.
Quantum rhetoric isn't 'dialectical.' Dialectic uncloaks its own bogosity in a very simple way: it induces 'contradictions.' If we take away its 'contradictions,' dialectic ceases all viability. See our SOM's Bases of Judgment. If you read yellow background text there, you will see why Pirsig, Bergson, Gödel, Gandhi, Confucius, Buddha, Heraclitus, and Doug all view dialectic as a massive 'con' job.
Both Nash and Phædrus adhered dialectic either-or, EOOO. Neither grasped quantum essentials of rhetoric: both~and, BAWAM. If you believe EOOO and suddenly are thrust into a reality which is BAWAM...it becomes easier to grasp opening Acts of a dialectical thought-cop shallow play called "Schizophrenia." However, when you have been trained in BAWAM, n¤ schizophrenia manifests.
Quantum~reality with its implicit Dynamic Quality in full pragma, shows us how reality is all positive flux, negation is subjective, and ideal classical-dialectical opposites do n¤t, can n¤t, 'exist.' There are n¤ 'cons' in quantum~reality, folks.
Granger does n¤t understand this. Dewey did n¤t and probably never will understand it.
What's unique (omnique) here is how Pirsig intuited it (Zen intuits animacy and inclusion except for most Zens' analogue of Hinduic dichon(Nirvana, samsara)...), especially after his time in hell as dialectical Phædrus. But Phædrus was commencing his own grasp of understanding, similar John Nash, when his 'schizophrenia' exploded. A quantum~tell, in itself, by-the-way.
In Granger's last sentence of this paragraph he offers us another oxymoron, "metaphysics...to discriminate...through...a process of dialectical definition, ..."
Here, again, metaphysics must be viewed both dialectically and quantumly. Granger's discriminate is a pure dialectism, and his "...a process of dialectical definition, ..." is an oxymoron depending upon whether we alternatively view process dialectically as 'state-event' sequence then as we should view pr¤cæss quantumly as DQ-mediated evolutionary quantum~real isoflux~flux interrelationshipings.
Clearly Granger views 'process' as 'state event' sequence. We show in that link how 'state-event' is simply a bogus 'scientific' convention. Classical 'science' is a huge 'state-event' lie, but Granger accepts it as conventional 'truth.' Doug - 18Jan2008.
|65:||"Yet Pirsig was in the end unwilling to surrender the potential fruits of metaphysical inquiry, at least as he came to perceive it. Because of this he had begun purposefully to dissociate Quality from the mysticism that had formerly governed Phaedrus' thinking. His treatment of Quality became essentially naturalistic, as we found in the preceding chapter. Quality no longer originated in some pristine transcendent reality, but rather in the dynamic and ineffable existential immediacy of the everyday lived world. Indeed, it was in the face of the impulse to transcendence, we are told, that 'Phaedrus' had finally erred in his more speculative metaphysics:||
We can give up dialectical metaphysics in favor of quantum~metaphysics.
Similarly we can give up dialectical mysticism in favor of quantum~mysticism.
As we have said above, Pirsig didn't "dissociate Quality from mysticism," since MoQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ) and DQ represents all mysticism and all other unknown, unknowable, and knowable reality. Pirsig answers a question, "Is mysticism real?" "Mu!" If it is real DQ subsumes it as: unknown, unknowable, and knowable reality.
Granger's "His treatment of Quality became essentially naturalistic,..." isn't apparent to Doug. Given that let's take a look at what Simon Blackburn has to say about naturalism.
Doug makes it even clearer here that dialectic and all 'sciences' which use dialectic are genetically, congenitally incapable of describing Pirsig's MoQ as a quantum~reality.
Dialectic, congenitally, is invalid as a 'method' for describing quantum~reality.
So we have more questions. Is nature quantum? Is nature dialectical? We claim nature is quantum. Actually, we claim quantum~descriptions of nature more closely align nature than do dialectical-definitions of nature.
If Western natural sciences find their bases of thought in quantum~metaphysics, quantum~philosophy, quantum~science, quantum~coquecigrues, and quantum~linguistics...then we could agree with most of what Blackburn writes above. In bold red we show that with which we omnisagree, outright.
Doug can see how Granger concluded Pirsig's MoQ as naturalistic, but that doesn't make Granger 'right.'
Doug has already shown how Pirsig's MoQ is an evolute empiricism which Doug coined empiritheory. Readers may wish to view that as a 'subset' of Blackburn's naturalism. To Doug it is a superset of most ISMs.
Quantonics 'elements' are quantons. We use quantons to describe animate, EIMA, coobsfecting interrelationshipings of quantons at all scales of reality. For example, MoQ quanton(DQ,SQ), quantum~reality quanton(DQ,SQ), photon quanton(DQ,SQ), electron quanton(DQ,SQ), quark quanton(DQ,SQ), and etc.
|Granger quotes Pirsig:||
'Perhaps ["Phaedrus"] would have gone in the direction I'm now [going] if [the] metaphysical wave [of his thought] had finally grounded out where I'll be grounding it out, that is, in the everyday world. I think metaphysics is good if it improves everyday life; otherwise, forget it. But unfortunately for him it didn't ground out. It went into a . . . mystical wave of crystallization from which he never recovered. (ZMM 221)'
As pure quantum~flux quantum~reality has n¤ Aristotelian, substantial, objective, material grundlagen! Doug.
Doug assumes MoQ is quantum. If that assumption retains any validity, only a dialectical metaphysics could possible "ground out."
|65:||"Pirsig refers to his metaphysics "grounding out" in the everyday throughout the remainder of ZMM. And in its successor, Lila, references to Quality are largely devoid of even metaphorical appeals to a transcendent reality. As the book begins gradually to flesh out Pirsig's pragmatic naturalism, the other-worldly sentiments that continue to spring up at points in ZMM finally cease altogether.||
This is plain and simple dialectical BS.
As we have explained MoQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ). Pirsig even attempted to draw a picture of that. Other-worldly sentiments are intrinsically and extrinsically implicit in MoQ. To try to change it as Granger does is to put dialectical concrete into Pirsig's mouth.
People have been hung for less, and Doug is looking for a long rope...
To make his gagging even worse.
"In jettisoning the notion that Quality offers a path to a supreme mystical reality, Pirsig was able to sidestep the mystic's argument that metaphysics is an intrinsically degenerate enterprise. The idea of a "genuine understanding" of a reality of this sort about which one could be deceived no longer made sense. Besides, Pirsig's intellectual side, his conventional "Western mind," could not resist the temptation to delve into metaphysics: "Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. . . The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't been born-and to whose birth no thought has been given" (Lila 65). Pirsig suggests that "Phaedrus" might also have made such an appeal to shake off the mystic's argument had he not so thoroughly embraced that argument himself. It is inevitable that humans engage in metaphysical inquiry of one kind or another, he seems to believe. The most critical thing, again, is that we not lose sight of the everyday world as the origin and end of inquiry."
"In jettisoning the notion that Quality offers a path to a supreme mystical reality..."
"The most critical thing, again, is that we not lose sight of the everyday world as the origin and end of inquiry..." OK, then is DQ in "the ordinary world?" How do you answer? "Mu!" ... "Yes!" ... "No!" ... "Yæs!" ... "N¤! " Which?
Granger, perhaps Doug,...one of us doesn't understand MoQ.
What do you think? Perhaps thingk?
Thank you for reading.
Doug - 31Jan2008.
Thank you for reading,
See you here again in early March, 2008!