Arches

A Dialogue Twixt AH and Doug
About Sartre,
Quantonics,
and Quantum Reality

A series of five emails, three from AH to Doug, and two responses from Doug to AH.

(Minor edits to add links, italics, bold, etc. Some non relevant text deleted.
Some text corrections/alterations/misspelling, etc. Brackets as apropos. Three of AH's emails
are lumped into one, and three of Doug's emails (responses to AH's three) are lumped into one.
Major extensions to original emails are in red text.)

(Symbol fonts are GIFs.
Some Wingdings, MT-Extra, and rtf fonts.
E.g., capital 'J' in Wingdings is a smiley face.)

(This dialogue contains more extensive Quantonics remediations than previous dialogues.
If you have trouble, see our links below.)



1 of 5 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.
Subject: About Sartre.
Date: 18 September 2003
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To: Doug Renselle, Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

In a previous e-mail, you mentioned AH's suggestion that morals and ethics are meaningless in DQ. AH wonders if any interrelation twixt this and French existentialist philosopher-novelist Jean-Paul Sartre's assertion that "ethics cannot be derived from ontology"?

Aside - 18Oct2003 - Doug:

Doug's next sentence in that prior email is, for example, "In DQ there is no temperature, space, time, gravity...no SQ."

From a quantum perspective, this is comsistent with scientific notions of 'absolute zero.' Too, isocoherent temporalities. Ditto, space and gravity. DQ represents SQ's quantum comjugal complement: quanton(DQ,SQ).

[Next paragraph is heavily QELR'd. Just a sample to accustom those unfamiliar with our efforts to remediate English language to assist its utility in describing quantum reality.]

Wæ can sh¤w that lihkæ this: quanton(quantum_n¤nahctualihty,quantum_ahctualihty), where quantum_n¤nahctualihty issi an ~exahct (exact) mætaph¤r ¤f quantum vacuum flux, vacuum ænærgy spacæ, zær¤ p¤ihnt flux, etc. Ræhdærs may ch¤¤se t¤ ihmagine n¤nahctualihty, as Doug d¤æs, as comtrar¤tating zeroentropic flux which issi then, duæ ihts comtrar¤tati¤n, nægæntr¤pihc. This issi ¤nly heuristihc; comjæcture. Iht appæars viable ihn etænding prægmatihc mæmæos ¤f quantum ræhlihty. That issi why wæ aræ pr¤ffering iht.

Here is an animate quanton to (inadequately) 2D depict our notion graphically:

Quantum comtrar¤tati¤n ¤ccurs ihn DQ's isoflux (n¤nahctualihty's uhp t¤ Planck ratæ ¤mni is¤fluxings). Other 'circle' shows SQ as mixtures of wobbling fermions and nonwobbling bosons with 'unseeable' and 'nonapparent' compenetrating DQ. View this as a reality loop of AH's OEDC and we can imagine a quantum version of real immergence and emergence. Examine: MoQ Reality Loop I, MoQ Reality Loop II, Ensemble Quantum Interrelationships, and our quantonics quantum ontology description.

Now to explicitly answer AH's query... Quantons aræ quantum pr¤cæssings anihmatæly m¤dælings quantum ræhlihty at ahll scalæs. Thus quantons ihn Quantonics' sænse aræ quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy. Ahll issi p¤tæntiahlly p¤ssible ihn quantum ¤nt¤l¤gy. Thus French existentialist philosopher-novelist Jean-Paul Sartre's asserti¤n that "ethics cann¤t bæ dærihved fr¤m ¤nt¤l¤gy" issi n¤n quantum viable. It's just another classical Pirsigean platypus, EOOO, yes-no dichon. How do we know that? Sartre's 'cannot' is a classically objective negation. HyperBoole!

Ethics d¤ n¤t 'eist' ihn quantum n¤nahctualihty, AKA DQ. H¤wævær ethics amd any ¤thær quantum p¤tæntia aræ dærihvable fr¤m DQ amd ihnstanced ihn SQ. Ethics can æmærgæ fr¤m DQ amd tæntatihvæly latch as SQ just lihkæ any ¤thær quantum phen¤mæna.

End aside - Doug.

Many Quantum Truths,

AH



2 of 5 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.
Subject: Re: Sartre.
Date: 19 September 2003
From: Doug Renselle, Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@yahoo.com

AH,

Previous students asked us to weigh Sartre. We just checked our Britannica. Sartre (1905-1980) is-was an existentialist who disliked social patterns of value. He liked individual patterns of value. We agree with that, but disagree with notions of some existentialists that no value 'exists.' We assume they would say DQ does not exist.

Sartre was awarded 1964 Nobel Literature prize, but declined it. We imagine he did so feeling that Nobel Committee is a social pattern of value which has no business nor capability assessing quality of an individual's work. We can understand that, quite easily. We imagine he disliked, much as Pirsig, any celebrity. A young fellow from Australia or New Zealand thought Existensialism is like MoQ. When we showed him our view that they share some similarities, but are actually quite different, he stopped writing to us...

We think our ISM Extremes page is useful here.

[Readers n¤te that many ¤f Doug's subsequent prægmagraphs (i.e., paragraphs) comtain n¤vel QELR, s¤mæ ¤f which issi ræcænt amd may n¤t yæt have achiæved d¤cumæntati¤n ihn ¤ur QELR.]

(We believe) Pirsig would say that quantum increments of ontology are naturally (physially) moral (each quanta's l¤cal assæssmænt issi just what iht 'l¤cahlly' tæntatihvæly lihkæs; ævæn bættær ihts ch¤¤sing issi a quantum supærp¤sihti¤n v¤te wihth ahll ¤thær nature amd he-r c¤mplæmænts). Similarly, and agreeing with Sartre, Pirsig probably would say that social patterns of SQ which pretend moral and ethical values and attempt global instantiation are bogus. (We view moral and ethical synthesis as pretentious social objectivity. It is monist: one size fits all.) Any hegemon uses such social patterns and synthetic polls to nation-ally, state-ic-ally control individuals. When that happens, and it nearly always does, it is a great ESQ evil. An endless, unattenuated one-note wail. Wæ ihmagine m¤ralihty as quantum l¤cal phen¤mæna. As such iht l¤ses valuæ as ihts n¤nl¤calihty gr¤ws. Ag-gregari¤us s¤cieties aræ ihnnatæly n¤nl¤cal. But classically any specific moral fret attenuates amd dilutes when a society attempts to spread it like butter over an entire societal sandwich. PC (political correctness) is thus, in MoQ, immoral and amoral. CR too. But quantum ræhlihty issi ihmpærmanæntly fretted amd frettable (frettings). Ahll ihts quantum n¤tings aræ s¤phist sælf-¤thær-ænsehmble-ræcursihve-sc¤rings amd læast ahcti¤nings tæntatihvæ. Gist!

In this case, MoQ and Existensialism Sartre-style, arrive at similar conclusions without sharing metaphysical underpinnings. Nietzsche's nihilism is similar. Those two examples are, in our view, just more quantum tells of reality's genuine hermeneuticity. ("Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity," Philip R. Wallace, McGill, Paradox Lost.) Classicists view that as "the measurement problem," and "the interpretation problem." You see, for a classicist there is but one interpretation (theirs) and one way to measure (theirs).

Doug.



3 of 5 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.
Subject: About Sartre.
Date: 21, 23, 24 September 2003
(three emails combined by Doug)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To: Doug Renselle, Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

On existentialism: Sartrean-atheistic-existentialism postulates a fundamental distinction twixt Being-in-Itself, which is all of nonconscious (non-aware) reality, and Being-for-Itself, which is conscious (aware) human reality. Sartrean-atheistic-existentialism issi EOOO, non-straddling, classical dichon; so are other existentialist forms, i.e., theistic: Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Marcel, Tillich and agnostic: Heidegger.

23 September 2003 -

AH has been re-viewing a book he'd read back in the late 1970s, entitled, An Existentialist Ethics, 1967, authored by Hazel Barnes, a Classics-Humanities Professor at University of Colorado who had previously translated several of Sartre's books, including his Being and Nothingness. There is an interesting chapter entitled, 'The Temptation of Eastern Philosophy,' where Barnes compares Sartrean Existentialism with Vedanta and Zen Buddhism. Here are some relevant excerpts:

On Vedanta: "For humanistic existentialism, consciousness is nothing but an awareness of its objects, an awareness which always includes an implicit self-awareness of not being the object. Neither in sleep or death is there anything left that may withdraw and depart—either to Brahman or into another body. Clearly the doctrine of reincarnation demands that the individual consciousness is a being even if a separated, partial one; it cannot be the translucent process which is the Sartrean consciousness. One must choose here between humanistic existentialism and Vedanta. No amount of modification can reconcile them to one another without destroying what is essential to each. Existentialism, if it is to hold consistently to its own description of consciousness, must reject the theory of reincarnation even if empirical evidence is on principle unobtainable. Sartre in Being and Nothingness views almost all of human enterprise as the mistaken attempt to be God as Causa Sui, at once necessary and contingent, free and yet secured. Christian immortality and reincarnation are similarly gigantic self-contradictory wish fulfillments." (Doug's bold of AH's quote of Barnes.)

On Zen Buddhism: " 'Going nowhere in a timeless moment' is the goal of Zen. Existentialism, of course, denies that any moment is truly timeless for a temporal consciousness. In choosing between the two values of genuine spontaneity and the creation of a coherent life plan and value system, Zen has chosen the former exclusively. What disturbs me about Zen is that it seems to preclude the creation of a value system, both because of its denial of temporality and because it allows for no real sense of responsibility. In this respect, though for somewhat different reasons, it suffers from the same weakness that impairs Vedanta."

On both Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: "Eastern philosophy promises a higher irrationality which transcends the admitted limitations of human reason and opens the door to an infinite expansion of consciousness. It is my belief that this promise is an invitation to avoid working to achieve such progress as reason can make, despite its restrictions, and a temptation to escape the burden of responsibility which inevitably accompanies individual consciousness. It is neither self-expansion or self-realization but a refusal to engage any longer in pursuing or making a self."

24 September 2003 -

This will be AH's final comments on Existentialism, hope he has n¤t burdened you with too much on this subject. A few more excerpts from Hazel Barne's An Existentialist Ethics on Sartre's views of consciousness, starting once again in Chapter 8, 'The Temptation of Eastern Philosophy:'

She says, "I think of no concept in Sartre's philosophy more difficult than that of a consciousness which bestows meaning and significance on a chaotic world, a consciousness which is absolutely free and unique, which is separated (psychically) from all that of which it is conscious, and which is finally defined as distinguished from the rest of reality precisely by Nothing! Just what is consciousness and where is it? The question of just what consciousness is remains hard to answer — even if we resolve to accept Sartre as final authority and have read all that he has written."

(Yet, in Chapter One, 'The Choice To Be Ethical,' Barnes
already proffered a definition of consciousness. - AH)

The text: "Consciousness is not entity but a process of attention, as William James put it, or intention, to use the phenomenological term as Sartre does. Apart from its objects, consciousness is nothing at all. Consciousness is always consciousness of something. What prevents it from being one with its object is precisely nothing, and this nothing is that nothingness or psychic withdrawal which is the act of consciousness. Since consciousness is thus only a constant relating, the assuming of a point of view, there is nothing in consciousness, certainly no unconscious and no reservoir of determining traits or tendencies. The unconscious Sartre denies completely. Most startling of all, the accumulation of memories, habits and personal characteristics, even the strong sense of being and having a definite 'I' or 'me' — all of this psychic material Sartre puts over on the side of Being-in-itself, making it the object and product of consciousness rather than an intrinsic primary structure of Being-for-itself.

"If we leave the level of abstraction and attempt to see what Sartre means in terms of ordinary human experience, we find a radical affirmation of human freedom and a view of Self as a value to be pursued rather than either a determining nucleus of possibilities or a hidden nugget to be uncovered. We are, in our innermost being, a power of choosing again at each moment the relation which we wish to establish with the world around us and with our own past and future experiences in the world."

And later, "In denying that there is an Unconscious, Sartre naturally does not claim that at every moment we are aware of the full significance of our present act as related to all of our past experiences. What he denies is that there are buried experiences or parts of our psyche, on principle out of reach, which are actively participating in our immediate choices while a conscious Ego acts in ignorance of our own past acts. We may refuse to reflect upon our present motives or even lie to ourselves about them. This is the procedure of a consciousness in bad faith. Sartre differs from Freud in insisting that a consciousness is never totally the dupe of its own lie."

AH



4 of 5 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.
Subject: Re: Sartre.
Date: 24, 25(two merged as one) September 2003
(combined three of Doug's emails)
From: Doug Renselle, Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@yahoo.com

24 September 2003 -

AH,

See embedded remarks below -

Audio Head wrote: Hey Doug!

AH has been re-viewing a book he'd read back in the late 1970s,entitled, An Existentialist Ethics, 1967, authored by Hazel Barnes,a Classics-Humanities Professor at Univ.of Colorado who had previously...

AH,

We have n¤t heard of Barnes. She appears quite extraordinary in I-cubed and perceptions.

Doug

...translated several of Sartre's books, including his Being and Nothingness.    There is an interesting chapter entitled, 'The Temptation of Eastern Philosophy,' where Barnes compares Sartrean Existentialism with Vedanta and Zen Buddhism. Here are some relevant excerpts:    On Vedanta: "For humanistic existentialism, consciousness is nothing but an awareness of its objects, an awareness which always includes an implicit self-awareness of not being the object."

AH,

This agrees with our points made shallowly 2nd qtr., 2002.

This is ideal dialectical EOOO. 'Not' as used above is lisr, Aristotelian substantial objective.

Doug

"Neither in sleep or death is there anything left that may withdraw and depart — either to Brahman or into another body. Clearly the doctrine of reincarnation demands that the individual consciousness is a being even if a separated, partial one; it cannot be the translucent process which is the Sartrean consciousness. One must choose here between...

AH,

'Translucence' is fascinating here. It evokes in us a quantum included-middle, even EIMA.

Doug

...humanistic existentialism and Vedanta. No amount of modification can reconcile them to one another without destroying what is essential to each. Existentialism, if it is to hold consistently to its own description of consciousness, must reject the theory of reincarnation even if empirical evidence is on principle unobtainable...

AH,

Doug is too ignorant on Sartre to understand what Barnes is saying here. We'll check our philosophical references tomorrow and comment prior to sending this.

We presume Sartre said something like "Enjoy life! That's all there is." If he did, that is very unquantum. "If that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. We'll break out the booze and have a ball...if that's all..."

Barnes' "No amount of modification can reconcile them to one another without destroying what is essential to each." describes an ideal excluded-middle which is incompatible with quantum reality. We need to know what she means by "consistently." If it is our semantic, then we need to know what existentialism thinks consciousness is. In our version of quantum reality, reality is itself consciousness (scaling self-awareness) which never ceases 'existence.' All that (i.e., what) happens is our version of a quantum ontology. That quantum ontology has essence of what we think she would call reincarnation. If she denies that then we are in a realm of Bergsonian "radical finality." That requires classical closure which is antithetical quantum hlihty (i.e., whatings wæ aræ k-nowings ¤f iht).

Our Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy says Existensialism is a mix of various philosophies. It says practitioners conclude human life is absurd. (We see that as saying Value is absurd which leads us to say quantum stochasticity-probability is absurd. We believe anyone who calls those quantum notions absurd is being absurd.) Healthy humans deal with life's 'absurdities' by viewing them as problems which need study. Classicists rationalize them (in our view a waste of effort since reality, to us, issi not mechanical), and MoQites view them as varying levels of Quality and Value whose physials can always be improved, made Pirsigean better. Simply, to us, quantum reality is an endless measurement-OEDC loop of better. It's more complex than that due heterogeneity and islandicity. When we mix them, genuinely queer (i.e., they appear "queer" from any classical conspective) quantum phenomena arise. But most, if n¤t all, are in some (quantum-quantonic) perspective miraculous and almost spiritual. For us this educes wonder, n¤t existential dread. Would that it were wonder for all...

Doug has never felt better listening to and reading words emanating from existentialists' mouths and pens.

Nietzsche at least saw light beyond nihilism's nadir.

Our Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy speaks of fideism. Fideism is a belief that one's beliefs may not be rationalized.

But rational reason is n¤t our only source of think-king. We distinguish (omnistinguish) thing-king (rationalism) and think-king (quantumism).

Hopefully our website covers most issues surrounding those omnifferences and omnifferings.

Fideism appears to say rationality does not work (we agree) so give up. Implication: nothing else works either. But haven't we shown how powerful quantum think-king is and how it deals with nearly any absurdity existentialism can empirically-existentially-experientially-evidentially throw at us?

When Doug was active in TLS, many folk talked of this philosophy and saw similarities to MoQ. In Doug's view, that was a BIG tell that folk in TLS simply did n¤t (probably still do n¤t ) understand MoQ. But perhaps Doug has extended his version of MoQ to a point where it is no longer MoQ. To Doug quantum reality and Pirsig's MoQ are family. Quantum reality thence quantum philosophy (MoQ) thence quantum science. A great and powerful family. A family for Millennium III. A family for success.

As you know, AH, Doug can go on and on... See how this digests... We'll go from there.

Doug

 ...Sartre in Being and Nothingness views almost all of human enterprise as the mistaken attempt to be God as Causa Sui, at once necessary and contingent, free and yet secured. Christian immortality and reincarnation are similarly gigantic self-contradictory wish fulfillments."

AH,

Then Nirvana is one gigantic wish fulfillment.

See, AH, when we use words-phrases like "one cause," "cause per se," "contradictory," "self-contradictory," and "necessary," we cannot help but get in trouble in our attempts to describe anything. "Sui genera" is similar. Aristotle got stuck in that one (i.e., substance) and fundamentalists (like EPR) today do too. Oneness which is n¤t an agent of its own plurality is problematic. Heterogeneity which is n¤t an agent of its oneness, ditto. Life which is n¤t an agent of its OEDC, ditto. I Ching got that part ~correct, in our view. Sartre who is n¤t an agent of his own complementarity and complementation is problematic.

What did Sartre have to say about Gestalt?

Doug

      On Zen Buddhism: " 'Going nowhere in a timeless moment' is the goal of Zen. Existentialism, of course, denies that any moment is truly timeless for a temporal consciousness.

AH,

What is "temporal consciousness?" (Is it) Classical "unitime consciousness?"

What is "timelessness?" (Is it) Ideal classical "stoppability?" (P.A.M. Dirac said "...only that which is immutable is determinate." Note added 17Oct2003 - Doug. So, we may infer (and we believe) that which is classically stopped (i.e., <not in classical motion> and <n¤t quantum fluxing>) is by classical mandate determinate.)

Doug

 ...In choosing between the two values of genuine spontaneity and the creation of a coherent life plan and value system, Zen has chosen the former exclusively.

AH,

In our view, "genuine spontaneity" is kin Bergson's duration, others' "direct experience," quantonics' animate EIMA ~monitoring-straddling version of "quantum measurement," etc.

Plan is an expectation of ideal causation. Clockwork mechanical.

Now is (more quantumly "n¤wings aræ") ultimate Value.

Doug

 ...What disturbs me about Zen is that it seems to preclude the creation of a value system, both because of its denial of temporality and because it allows for no real sense of responsibility. In this respect, though for somewhat different reasons, it suffers from the same weakness that impairs Vedanta."

AH,

Again, Doug is getting killed here by his ignorance.

From what we k-now re: Zen-Chan, responsibility is quantal ch-cubæd (i.e., ch¤¤sings, chancings, changings) f¤r bættær. Pirsig calls it morality's optimal increment. We call it "quanton."

Barnes appears to be saying there is no value without ag-gregarious social substrate.

Aside - 19Oct2003 - Doug:

"Gregarious social substrate" is a crucial quantum tsunami issue for Millennium III! We are working on it nowings. Our efforts ihncludæ: ¤mnihfferæncings am¤ng quantum s¤cial pattærns ¤f Valuæ (Sq - SP¤Vs) and classical social patterns of Value (Sc-SPoVs). First is under QTMs and second is under CTMs. We offer samples of our initial efforts at:

  1. our Dialogue With Jon (read all 'aside' text there),
  2. our August, 2003 News (Our Quantonics quantum vis-à-vis classical applied, social vis-à-vis individual SPoV, effort to California's recall of Gray Davis.), and
  3. our Review of Sidis' Nervous Ills Ch. XXX.

That kind of classical fundam-anthrotal social value (what Boris Sidis describes) people died for, IOO, wrongly-worse.

Our table just below offers a synopsis of those readings.

Since we have used this venue as our chosen place of introducing comtextual SPoV nomenclature, let's show a table depicting how we can use these subscripted-prefix-SPoVs to describe Pirsig's four levels in more quantum, Quantonics QELR'd scripts and show them juxtaposed their classical notation:

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

See our MoQ Emerscitecture Graphic.

Evolutionary Description - Right to Left

Quantum SP¤Vs - Quantonic - Pirsigean
Value Hierarchy
Classical SPoVs-Pirsigean S-O Inversion
Value Hierarchy

Classical SPoVs-Aristotelian S-O Uninverted
Value Hierarchy
A-I, Social, ihndihvihdual SPoVs' Evolution IqQ -SP¤Vs ihndihvihdual

V
A
L
U
E

E
M
E
R
S
O
S

ScP-SPoVs Social S AcA-SPoVs Atomic-Inorganic O

S
O
M
'S

M
Y
T
H
O
S

B, I, S¤cial SPoVs' Evolution SqQ -SP¤Vs S¤cial IcP-SPoVs Intellectual BcA-SPoVs Biological
Social, Biological, Bi¤n¤n SPoVs' Evolution BqQ -SP¤Vs Bi¤n¤n-l¤gihcal
See bionon.
BcP-SPoVs Biological O ScA-SPoVs Social S
I, A-I, At¤mihc-ihn¤rganihc SPoVs' Evolution AqQ -SP¤Vs At¤mihc-ihn¤rganihc AcP-SPoVs Atomic-Inorganic IcA-SPoVs Intellectual
©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2010 — Rev. 21Oct2003 PDR — Created 17Oct2003 PDR

Regular visitors in Quantonics will be seeing a lot more of these heuristics as we compare classical thing-king methods and quantum think-king modes.

To distill this and make it easy for students of Quantonics, classical SPoVs are objective and quantum SP¤Vs aræ quantonic. Classicists place social value above individual-intellectual value. Quantumists attenuate classical SQ-intellect (most selectively classical ESQ intellect) and place ihndihvihdual valuæ ab¤ve S¤cial valuæ. This issi key t¤ fath¤ming Pirsig's MoQ n¤n-classihcal Valuæ ihnværsi¤n. Iht sahys that ihntællect issi m¤re highly æv¤lved amd æv¤lving than s¤ciety. This agrææs sænsati¤nahlly wihth what wæ k-n¤w ab¤ut quantum ræhlihty. It also provides an easy way to grasp Doug's modes of analogy in those three numbered links (dialogue, News, Sidis links) above our comparison table. In classical reality, one size fits all-, slow change rate-, homogenous-, group-society reigns. Ihn quantum ræhlihty, high changæ ratæ, heterogæne¤us quantum ihndihvihdual ihntællects aræ ch¤¤sings-chancings-changings ræspæctfully while quantum s¤ciety dæfers-ihnures ihndihvihdual ihntællects' selectings.

Exegesis of our "quantum respect" will take a significant effort, but it is close kin John Forbes Nash's Equilibrium Theory, and for now that is a good place to start pondering. Nash's use of "equilibrium" offers great harmony with Pirsig's "balance."

There is much more to be done here. At some futurings we shall cover details extensively, e.g., watch for our October, 2003 TQS News which focuses on this topic with more coverage and commentary and innovative uses of our table above.

End aside.

Doug

      On both Vedanta and Zen Buddhism: "Eastern philosophy promises a higher irrationality which transcends the admitted limitations of human reason and opens the door to an infinite expansion of consciousness. It is my belief that this promise is an invitation to avoid working to achieve such progress as reason can make, despite its restrictions, and a temptation to escape the burden of responsibility which inevitably accompanies individual consciousness. It is neither self-expansion or self-realization but a refusal to engage any longer in pursuing or making a self."

AH,

Socialists are lost as individuals... (This explains why socialism is Dawkinsian n¤n ESS.)

Socialism (social objectivism) is a contrived mythos, as Pirsig has told us. They substitute mechanics for Nature and then use "rationale" to call He-r "absurd." All else is "irrational." We just described SOM's Box. Yes, quantum-sophism is classically irrational. Yes, it offers transcendence. Isn't it irresponsible to stay in a box? To stay in a dark cave? To stay in social chauvinism?

It is clear that Barnes believes classical reason is a (the) pathway to "pursuing," "making a self."

That self is a self which obeys herd instinct. It obeys social value patterns, n¤t individual value patterns. Boris nails this in spades.

Is she implying that social patterns make individuals? That's what Mussolini said, "The state makes the people." Ugly then, ugly now.

Wethinks y-our author was a fan of Ayn Rand, mayhaps? (The Passion of Ayn Rand is a very telling video...)

Responsibility to society is lower value than responsibility to self AKA quantum-sophist aretê (Greek virtue is 'aretê,' where 'ê' is eta, while Greek excellence is 'aritos.' We can find no Greek alpha-rho-eta... words in our Pocket OxUP.).

Doug

25 September 2003 -

1st of two emails today -
 

AH,

See comments embedded below -

Audio Head wrote: Hey Doug!

This will be AH's final comments on Existentialism, hope he has n¤t burdened you with too much on this subject.

AH,

Not at all...change is refreshing...

Our ignorance of Sartre and existentialism shows. We tend n¤t to study other philosophers and their philosophies simply due a need for multiple life times to accomplish that plus our view that individual interests and obsessions are higher value.

Doug

     A few more excerpts from Hazel Barne's An Existentialist Ethics on Sartre's views of consciousness, starting once again in Chapter 8, 'The Temptation of Eastern Philosophy:' She says, "I think of no concept in Sartre's philosophy more difficult than that of a consciousness which bestows meaning and significance on a chaotic world, a consciousness which is absolutely free and unique, which is separated (psychically) from all that of which it is conscious, and which is finally defined as distinguished from the rest of reality precisely by Nothing! Just what is consciousness and where is it?

AH,

Her use of "absolutely free," "unique," and "separated" all are n¤n quantum.

Dichon(unique, separated) vis-à-vis quanton(unique,compenetrating). Former is dichotomy. Latter issi quantum islandicity.

Ditto "finally defined." Quantum reality issi emergings. "Di - stinguished." Quantum reality is unstoppable for any classically stable di stinguishing.

What we read here is that SQ is all there is. DQ is "nothing." DQ as no thing implies DQ does not classically exist.

Dichon(nothing, something). Dichon(nothing, consciousness).

"What" as ideal classical objective identity. "Where" as ideal classical Descartesian <p, q, r, s> locus! That n-tuple, BTW, is what mathematicians today use to 'define' ideal classical notion of 'point.' Classical 'point' is stable locus and 'dimensionless.'

Quantum reality has no such 'thing.' Ihf iht wære to describe a poihnt, saihd point would have arbitrary spatial distribution, amd absolute animacy.

SOM, SOM, SOM, it is a tired and worn refrain. A Babel of bilge. Naïveté par excellence!

So Dougs are name callers and who isn't?

Dougs

     The question of just what consciousness is remains hard to answer — even if we resolve to accept Sartre as final authority and have read all that he has written."     (Yet, in Chapter One, "The Choice To Be Ethical", Barnes already proffered a definition of consciousness. - AH)     The text: "Consciousness is not entity but a process of attention, as William James put it, or intention, to use the phenomenological term as Sartre does."

AH,

"Process of attention," assuming quantum process, issi right ¤n... Pr¤cæss ihmpliæs anihmacy, amd wæ w¤uld quantum~addq~ihnsert quantum EIMA.

Ihn a hl sænse this issi dæscrihpti¤ning ¤f quantum ræhlihty!

We think what we are seeing here is what Pirsig enigmatically meant when he said, "All are right."

Thæræ issi s¤mæ truth ihn ahll vihews ¤f ræhlihty. N¤næ issi c¤mplæte. Others aræ bættær. Ahll aræ wahnting, ahlways wahnting...

But our last sentence demands Philip R. Wallacean quantum~subjectivity. N¤t CR, rather, quantum~subjectivity. See our QELR of subject.

  2q

iq2q

-1q ei
 

We view this as a classically mechanical way of demonstrating Bergson's statement that negation is subjective. As far as we k-now, this graphic and our quantum square root is our, i.e., Quantonics' innovation. We are amazed that 'modern' mathematicians do n¤t 'see' this. SOM blinders again...

Doug

Apart from its objects, consciousness is nothing at all. Consciousness is always consciousness of something. What prevents it from being one with its object is precisely nothing, and this nothing is that nothingness or psychic withdrawal which is the act of consciousness. Since consciousness is thus only a constant relating, the assuming of a point of view, there is nothing in consciousness, certainly no unconscious and no reservoir of determining traits or tendencies. The unconscious Sartre denies completely. Most startling of all, the accumulation of memories,habits and personal characteristics, even the strong sense of being and having a definite 'I' or 'me' — all of this psychic material Sartre puts over on the side of Being-in-itself, making it the object and product of consciousness rather than an intrinsic primary structure of Being-for-itself.

AH,

We redded some obvious classical lingual problematics. She assumes putatively SOM's knife.

She also makes another enormous classical mistake: that a classical excluded-middle is 'empty,' in her, "Since consciousness is thus only a constant relating, the assuming of a point of view, there is nothing in consciousness..."

Our quantons, to Barnes, are empty! To her, Value is empty! To her, Quality is empty!

Enormous SOM errors of judgment. These errors contribute significantly to quantum science's slow progress during Earth's 20th century. Ditto our culture wars.

Please push back, AH, if you disagree. We are n¤t mandating hegemonous province here. We are saying quantum science-philosophy are better than existentialism and we believe we have and can demonstrate such. Our Quantonics site and our correspondence are our 'evidence.'

Doug

  ...If we leave the level of abstraction and attempt to see what Sartre means in terms of ordinary human experience, we find a radical affirmation of human freedom and a view of Self as a value to be pursued rather than either a determining nucleus of possibilities or a hidden nugget to be uncovered. We are, in our innermost being, a power of choosing again at each moment the relation which we wish to establish with the world around us and with our own past and future experiences in the world."

AH,

Here it appears that she describes quantum emergence.

But if Value is empty and relations are empty, does what she says here make sense in light of what she just said prior?

Perhaps abstraction is excluded-middle separated from human experience?

We find 'the relation' suspect in its homogeneity.

Doug

      And later, "In denying that there is an Unconscious, Sartre naturally does not claim that at every moment we are aware of the full significance of our present act as related to all of our past experiences. What he denies is that there are buried experiences or parts of our psyche, on principle out of reach, which are actively participating in our immediate choices while a conscious Ego acts in ignorance of our own past acts. We may refuse to reflect upon our present motives or even lie to ourselves about them. This is the procedure of a consciousness in bad faith. Sartre differs from Freud in insisting that a consciousness is never totally the dupe of its own lie."

AH,

We are unsure whether words like conscious and subconscious are appropriate. Of course we deny that — when we acknowledge reality as quantum — describing them (or anything) classically is appropriate, which is just what she and Sartre have done, consistently.

Narcolepsy demonstrates for us multiple (at least two) quantum pr¤cæssings and one may argue an included~middle. Of course we admit to and believe in EIMA multiverses of quantum pr¤cæssings.

Illusions show us at least three: quanton(illusion_complement_1,included~middle,illusion_complement_2). We suspect-expect unlimited complements. (See our Möbius Left artwork.)

Her "What he denies is that there are buried experiences or parts of our psyche, on principle out of reach, which are actively participating in our immediate choices while a conscious Ego acts in ignorance of our own past acts." contravenes quantum: ihncludæd~mihddle, n¤nl¤calihty, supærp¤sihti¤n, arbihtrary spathial pr¤babilihty ¤mnistrihbuti¤n, amd s¤ ¤n... Now we are n¤t agreeing with Plato here, AH. Plato's discoverable pre-'exist'ence is bogus immutability and stability. Mathematics is human invention, n¤t natural 'law.'

If we agree that intellect's "process of attention" (AKA quantum awareness) is a good description of what we mean by consciousness, then in it are seeds of subconsciousness. A metaphor is that our biological and inorganic and atomic and subatomic and QCD levels' processes of attention which make who we 'are,' are our subconscious. We are writing of that quantum think-king which is 'insensible' our intellect's consciousness. It should be clear there is argument in quantum reality about consciousnesses other than human intellectual consciousnesses. There are many: quantum consciousness heterogeneously scales its heterogeneous islandicities. "Sub-" is a naïve classical category, that's all.

Many Quantum Consciousnesses to you,

Doug.
PS - Thank you for making us do some home work on Sartre and eXistentialism. That is a whole branch of thought which we can now believe lies under a general umbrella of SOM with several hints at a quantum emerging awareness. Hopefully some of today's eXists read Quantonics. We think a table of comparisons might be an interesting project. Also a review of her (Barnes') book, but we just do n¤t have resources and timings for that. Anyway, you can see how we might proceed, and that may be useful to you in your own hermeneutics.                                                                 

MQTs,

                                                               AH 
 



5 of 5Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.
Subject: About Sartre.
Date: 21, 23, 24 September 2003
(three emails combined by Doug)
From: FlameProof@yahoo.com
To: Doug Renselle, Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Hey Doug!

Barnes is sharp (SOM's knife, pun intended!) as far as classical thinkers go. She is n¤t an intellectual clone of Sartre, although she does adhere certain fundamental tenets of Sartre's philosophy, e.g., Sartre's view of consciousness and its relation to world, his radical finalism, etc.

However, she does n¤t conclude, therefore, as radical finalist, that life is meaningless and absurd. She is much more positive than him that an ethics can be wrought from his ontology, i.e., humanistic existentialism. For example, in Chapter 2, 'Sartre's Choice' of her book, she states, "Finally, we must not make the mistake of assuming that an ethics without God, must posit and fulfill the same needs as an ethics which is theologically grounded." And later in Chapter 10, 'Personal Pronouns,' she says, "Still we must admit that the absence of any philosophical justification by Sartre of love as a positive existential structure of human reality is a serious lack."

You said, "Sartre who is n¤t an agent of his own complementarity and complementation is problematic." Yes, AH agrees.

You also stated, "Wethinks y-our author was a fan of Ayn Rand, mayhaps?"

N¤. Barnes spends an entire chapter (Chapter 6: 'Egoistic Humanism: Ayn Rand's Objectivism') noting similarities and (much greater) differences twixt Existentialism and Objectivism. Barnes disagrees with Rand's assertion that "the essence of man is reason." She claims that "reason, instead of being essence and self-evident guiding principle, is but one part of man." She further cites a quote from one of Rand's novels, "We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective" (via character John Galt, who says this in regards to himself and companions). Barnes says about this quote, "That is true for Rand as well, and it is what is fundamentally wrong with her Objectivist ethics. In turning her eyes away from whatever cannot be reduced to the objective, she cancels out vast areas of human experience. Subtly a new conformism is introduced." Later, "Objectivism is for free enterprise, but not for the free creation of values. It equates creativity with productivity."

And, "To the existentialist, Objectivism appears to be based on wish-fulfillment."

Finally, "We may feel as Rand does, and as I do, that the cross as a symbol of self-sacrifice is not an adequate measure of human aspiration. I do not think we will improve things by replacing it with the dollar sign. That is all too good an emblem for Objectivism, suggesting that happiness is for those who have the wherewithal to pay and in the currency by those who are in power. Existentialism seeks something less subject to the arbitrary whims of the market."

Then you said, "Our quantons, to her are empty! To her, Value is empty! To her, Quality is empty!"

Yes, Barnes (and Sartre) makes enormous SOM errors here. To them, DQ does not exist. Quantum-science-philosophy issi better, as we both k-now.

Lastly, you stated, "Thank you for making us do some homework on Sartre and existentialism. That is a whole branch of thought which we can now believe lies under a general umbrella of SOM with several hints at a quantum emerging awareness."

You're welcome! This discussion on Existentialism was initiated by AH for both his and Doug's edifications. AH did n¤t want go super-deep-prolonged on this subject. Just for certain limited, but clear understandings. That's why AH chose Barnes' book, which he felt an excellent summation of Sartre's philosophy instead of going directly via Sartre himself (his "Being and Nothingness" is dense<500+pages and abstruse>).

Re your addendum, you stated, "It should be clear their is no argument in quantum reality about consciousness other than human intellectual consciousness." AH agrees.

Many Quantum Truths,

AH


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2010 — Rev. 20Dec2008  PDR — Created 17Oct2003 PDR
(18Oct2003 rev - Move HTML to PC and convert MAC Netscape to PC HTML.)
(19Oct2003 rev - Extend page top red text aside. Add large SPoVs aside.)
(20Oct2003 rev - Repair typos. Add some cogent links. Update MoQ Emerscitecture graphic.)
(21Oct2003 rev - Extend SPoV Evolution Table and surrounding descriptive text.)
(12Nov2003 rev - Reset most red text and 'color=#000000' occurrences to save file space.)
(2Jan2004 rev - Minor updates to Society SPoV evolution aside.)
(11Mar2004 rev - Repair some damaged blockquotes. Repair some typos. Clarify some comments with red text.)
(18Jul2004 rev - Add links to QELRed 'empirical' and 'judge.')
(31Dec2004 rev - Adjust colors. Repair a link.)
(24-31Jan2005 rev - Correct spelling of Descartes. Reset some red text. Update a copyright.)
(1Oct2005 rev - Add anchor to 1st occurrence of 'SOM's knife.')
(4Jan2006 rev - Add links to 'point' and 'subject' under Barnes on Sartre's view of consciousness.)
(13,15Feb2006 rev - Repair aretê accent. Add Greek language comment on Greek virtue vav excellence.)
(24Feb2006 rev - Label all relevant quantum comtexts for automatic QELR.)
(25Apr2006 rev - Repair typos.)
(12Feb2007 rev - Adjust color and format. Repair minor typos.)
(18Mar2008 rev - Add mythos link to Doug's recent clarification of mythos' Quantonics semantic. Reformat slightly.)
(7Apr2008 rev - More reformating.)
(29Oct2008 rev - Repair some typos. Change wingdings and symbol fonts to gifs. Remove legacy markups.)
(26Nov2008 rev - Repair lower case to upper case beginning of sentence 'i' typos.)
(20Dec2008 rev - Add 'Quantum Awareness' anchor.)



Arches