Subject: Re: [Quantonics}: New top three MoQ Assumptions.
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 09:35:21 -0700

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
Organization: Quantonics, Inc. and The Quantonics Society
To: Address no longer valid...

(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions on our top page.)
(Minor edits, links, 'qfe' (Quantonic font 'equals')substitution in place of classical '=,'
spelling, who wrote | writes, etc.)

Quantonics Email List Message


Hi Steve and Quantos,

See, possibly extensive, embedded remarks below -

Steve and Dan, I am posting this email of Steve's and Dan's email on 'care'
on our site's sample 'Quanto' posts. I will post my responses too.

Steve Marquis wrote:

Quantonics Email List Message

Doug, Roger, and Dan,

Doug lists our next three assumptions:

4. MoQ reality IS Quality.
5. Quality is intrinsically moral.
6. Quality is intrinsically good.

Steve wrote:

As a group, these are important for they speak to essence of MoQ. The
failure of logical positivists / secular humanists to produce a coherent
system of values is indicative of their over emphasis on fact. This is
over-reliance on SQ (ignoring DQ), even if it is intellectual. As humans
this is not satisfactory (we naturally value quality), and thus we have a
'moral vacuum', New Age spiritual quick fixes, and such.

Doug responds:

Steve, one of your sentences above contains, "...overemphasis on fact."
Exactly! SOM's substance-based, objective reality is an innate source of
all ISMs' failure to see Value as essence. (To me, ISMs are all
philosophies based on: Subject only, Object only, both Subject and Object,
either Subject or Object.

A common key is all ISMs accept an Aristotelian schism twixt Subject and
Object, and further, they think an S-O schism is 'intrinsic' (natural) when
we have shown it is actually an 'innate' (dialectical, anthropocentric)
schism. SOM's S-O schism was created by Parmenides, Plato, Socrates (after
conversion by Plato), Aristotle, and their ilk.

Steve, your "This is over-reliance on SQ..." can lead to some problems with
newbies. Please do not 'equate' SQ and fact, or SQ and S-O, or SQ and O
only. A better way to say this might be, "This is over-reliance, perhaps
even total focus, on SOM-objective subset-aspects of SQ..."

Please look at these graphics to gain a sense of what I am about to say:

These diagrams intend to show SOM 'reality' as a SUBSET of MoQ's SQ. SQ
encompasses part of what SOM calls 'SOM's unknown.' Note that objective SOM
claims Subjective stuff does not 'exist.' So, essentially and this varies
among SOM's ISMs objective reality considers subjective reality

I drew those 'maps' to help us keep SOM reality in perspective.

SOM is a tiny reality. It is one island of reality. It is a 'closed'
cathedral of control ("Church of Reason.") reality. It is a finite reality.

Now compare my last four short sentences to their MoQ equivalents:

MoQ is modeling reality. MoQ is all islands of reality. MoQ is an open
bazaar of freedom (cohesive network of local autonomies) reality. MoQ is
unlimited reality.

Remember how Pirsig told us at Lila's chapter 12 beginning that MoQ is
complete? I thought (in my previous more SOMitic self) that Pirsig had made
a big mistake. I thought he had 'contradicted' himself. But he did not.
By claiming MoQ reality quanton(unknown,known)
he made MoQ complete!

(Clearly he did not use quantonic notation, but intended 'meaning' is

Also note, I put 'contradiction' in quotes because it is a SOM word. To SOM
any contradiction is innately global. Why? SOM assumes one global
context/convention for all assessments of 'truth.' SOM propositional logic
depends on this.

But we know SOM logic is, like SOM's island itself, incomplete. As soon as
we move to MoQ's many islands/truths/contexts, SOM is totally lost from a
logical perspective and from many other perspectives too.

By comparison, in MoQ 'contradiction' is a local artifact whose complement
is nonlocal. In other words 'contradiction' may be assessed locally within
a local truth 'system' but its uncertainty is high OUTSIDE of ITS- or IN any
OTHER-local system | convention.

Too, any local system may be perturbed by nonlocal affects with
outcomes/results which appear as koans/paradice from a SOM perspective, but
NOT as koans/paradice from an MoQ perspective since MoQ adheres many truths,
uncertainty, complementarity, etc. Simply, MoQ offers broader understanding.

So, we can see what SOM means by 'complete' is much different from what MoQ
means by 'complete.' SOM says we can develop GUTs and ToEs (Grand Unifying
Theories, and Theories of Everything). So to SOM a theory is 'complete'
when it explains everything (in SOM's tiny context/box). Clearly, you
should be able to see now how deluded SOMites are.

I am saying bluntly that SOM is innately either/or and SOM is stuck there.
Its most fundamental axioms/assumptions deny MoQ's both/and which is crucial
for epiphany's leap.

As review, it may be worth your while to read my 24Jan1998 letter to Bo
Skutvik on The Lila Squad:

What MoQ means by 'complete,' is that Value intrinsically commingles (as a
verb) both unknown and known. Everything is Value and everything is a
complementary commingling of unknown and known. Now add one more meme:
Value is absolute change. When your mind grasps essence of what I just
wrote, you are sharing an MoQ/quantum epiphany. SOM cannot even touch this
philosophically, metaphysically, ontologically, or scientifically. SOM is
not even in reality's ballpark!

Steve, your New Age quick fix comment strikes home. I am appalled when I
see Pirsig's books neatly aligned on some bookstores' shelves under heading,
"New Age."

Thankfully, we know better.


Steve wrote:

The appeal to Nature is foundation of Stoic ethics. Their motto is "live
in accordance with Nature". This does not mean abandon civilization (ie,
become a noble savage), it means become harmonious with reality. Stoic
cosmology also sees reality as providential. From 'Olympian' perspective;
everything is good. Nature does not make mistakes. Evil does not exist.
Also, there is no separation between Creator and Created as appeared later
in Christianity. The Stoics were pantheists.

Doug responds:

MoQ agrees with Stoics on harmony. Notice a strong connection twixt harmony
and flux/change. Also consider MoQ as also provident/fecund, where fecund
may be interpreted in original Greek and Latin bases: fec (Gr. | Lt. to make)
und (Lt. waves). This is quite a miraculous observation when one considers
from a quantum perspective what conception and birth are making waves
literally! Cell division is frequency doubling! For me, this is another
epiphany. It is apparent: nature AKA Quality makes beautiful music.

Pirsig tells us we, as SPoVs, should not want to achieve all SQ or all DQ.
Instead we must understand reality intrinsically balances both SQ and DQ.

I am simply amazed at some folk who consider absence of change (pure SQ)
Valhalla. Compare that to Pirsig's remarks that ESQ is MoQ's only 'evil.'
(I think Dan and I agree Pirsig means attempts at ESQ are MoQ's only
'evil.' MoQ's absolute change eventually changes all of reality.)

On a flip side, all DQ is (apparent) chaos, to use Pirsig's word. Quantum
science says its interpretation of DQ's equivalent Vacuum Energy Flux is not
'chaos' but ~isotropic ~omnimensional ~omniharmonic ~omnicoherent energy
attempting fecundity. (My use of 'omni' here probably is limited on a
smallness downside to Planck scales. Some quantum scientists now believe
Planck length (~10-44m) is reality's smallest unit of length. Christoph
Schiller tells us some quantum scientists think this is 'the' length where
DQ and SQ are identical wholly unified! Thus you can imagine how I
insist on saying DQ and SQ copermeate, commingle, interpenetrate, etc. And
when you juxtapose this with both Pirsig's and Herrigel's statements, "We
are in It and It is in us," you get another quasi-epiphany!)

On providence, I agree, but when I looked in my dictionary, 'provident' is
qualified with 'frugal.' My personal view of MoQ and quantum reality is we
need to redefine provident to mean literally, "provides abundantly."
Abundance is unlimited! (So why are we fighting over 'ownership' and
'resources?' SOM! SOM! SOM!)

(Be sure to re-read Petzinger's second newsletter where he talks about $
mutating into Value and his perceived consequences of this much related
to our new MoQ definition of provident.)

Ant McWatt asked me to look into pantheism and panexistentialism some
time ago. I saw many commonalities with MoQ. I dislike new philosophies
which insist on a meme of 'process' though. To me, that is left-brained,
analytic, sequential thinking antithetical to MoQ. Both MoQ and quantum
science tell us reality is not a process. It is more of a 'stochastic NOW.' We
must wholly evolve our current perspective of 'time' away from a meme of
analytic/linear 'flow.'


Steve wrote:

You can see, Doug, that I would prefer 'naturally' to 'intrinsically'.
However, this is not a hard preference, as 'nature' does have baggage with
some people. Intrinsic, as opposed to instrumental, implies ends, not
means. Quality is good in and of itself, not good for something else.
This implies the highest level context, ie, there is no where else to go.

Doug responds:

I pretty much agree. Value appears to be highest context. However, I would
qualify that MoQ is not yet at its highest Value.

I like to imagine we will never 'arrive' THERE. Climbing Value's endless
ladder of change, my heuristic is we endlessly flux twixt:

1. quanton(DQ,SQ), and
2. quanton(DQ,DQ). (Vis. right attractor flips SQ<->DQ.)

Some movies which depict approximately what I imagine are: Quiet Earth
(?-UK), City of Angels (Cage/Ryan), Made in Heaven (Tim Hutton and Kelly
McGillis), Powder (Lance ?), Ghost (Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore), What Dreams
May Come
(Robin Williams), and Contact with Jody Foster where scientists
build a large gyroscope-shaped machine which folds omnimensions. If you
are a movie buff and you have not seen some of these, you should check them
out. (To me they have...) Very MoQesque sensitivities.


Steve writes:

I cannot think of any real objections to this group of three. They are,
as Doug stated, basic Pirsigean axioms and almost direct quotes. We still
have a problem of using words (ie, definitions). 'Quality', 'moral', and
'good' all imply their opposites: what is not quality?; what is not
moral?; what is not good? My attempt at a solution is there is good
quality and better quality, but all is Quality, etc. How do we talk about
good and bad good? Well, one SPoV is of a higher value than another, but
all SpoVs have value. Moral evolution is a vector moving from dogma to
DQ, but everything is moral, given a certain perspective.

25Jan2009 aside:

This issue has been a thorn in MoQ's side since Pirsig first said,
ESQ is MoQ's only evil."

A problem with dialectical constructs like good versus 'not' good
is that they introduce dualism as ideally
negative and thus formally

A problem with a classical notion of "all good," and "all Quality,"
is we now introduce (reintroduce) bogosities of monism. Gnosis
says, "Monism is deceit," and we agree.

All N~isms are bogus. 1-ism (monism) is bogus. 2-ism (dualism)
is bogus. Etc. Why? SOM's knife cuts isms into dialectical Aristotelian
excluded-middle portions.

How do we work with this assuming reality issi quantum?

Following is easier and tends to eliminate all classical paradice via:

  1. Quantum~reality issi positive (there are n¤ classical dialectical
    negatives in quantum~reality).
  2. Quantum~reality's flux may be canceled, but we can never make
    quantal~zero (for example, to make quantum~darkness takes
    double energy light flux canceling one another: two times as much
    energy to make darkness).
  3. Quantum flux is perpetual. Some kinds of quantum~flux are
    adiabatic (lossless). Lossful (ensemble posentropic) quantum~flux
    devolves into lossless quantum flux. (Note: individual and ensemble
    bosons, individual~fermions and atoms are essentially adiabatic.)
  4. Quantum~isoflux is gainful. We call it 'reserve energy.' It is almost
    unbounded. See
    QCD creation of bosons and fermions from isoflux.
  5. etc. (Lots of et ceteras here.)

Thank you for reading. Doug - 25Jan2009.

End 25Jan2009 aside.

Doug responds:

I think we all accept, now, #s 4, 5, and 6 as-is.

I want to spend a little time next week on issues in this email and Dan's
email on 'care.' Please, everyone participate during next week. Our
working group will continue with our next three MoQ Assumptions (7,8,9)
starting 13Sep1999.

Steve, I think your paragraph above is close to being our most important
paragraph written in Quanto so far. To me, it shows how easily SOM creeps
back into (all of us) our minds, thoughts, thinking, and understanding.
Also, it offers opportunity to grasp MoQ essence very well, especially as it
juxtaposes quantum concepts.

Steve, you say, "We still have a problem of using words (i.e.,
definitions). 'Quality', 'moral', and 'good' all imply their opposites:"

What did you just do when you said that? What are you assuming?

Steve, did you read our transcript of our Loyola (Chicago) University
presentation? I emphasized some SOM words in that presentation: versus,
contradict, either/or, etc.

What is SOM's schism? It is a dichotomy of 'known' reality. SOM's schism
creates a chasm/wall twixt all SOM objects. (In SOM, only 'the known,'
'exists.') SOM objects may touch, but they never commingle. SOM objects
are reductionist. Carefully study Aristotle's three syllogistic laws:

1. A=A; (identity)
2. A is either A or not-A; and (contradiction)
3. A is not both A and not-A. (excluded middle)

See our paper from our Buridan review at:

All of Aristotle's syllogistic laws ASSUME reductionism and no change (ESQ),
i.e., reality holds still while we look at/measure it. SOM calls
Aristotle's syllogisms tautologies: self-evident truths! But MoQ and
quantum science say all three are delusions! (Our assumptions affect our

Did you practice Aristotle's #2 syllogistic law in your sentence above? :)
In your sentence above, did you treat 'Quality,' 'moral,' and 'good,' as SOM
objects? At least that is how I read your words. I assume you did not
really believe/imagine that when you wrote your sentence.

MoQ reality departs from isSOMland in a BIG way. Quality is not an object
or a subject. Quality is a meme, a quantum/quantonic meme, a quanton.

MoQ says

Quality MoQ reality quanton(DQ,SQ).

In our old classical 'equals' notation we wrote it like this:

Quality = MoQ reality = quanton(DQ,SQ).

But we can see now how ludicrous and obfuscatory an Aristotelian 'equals'
is. We need to, as Irving Stein says, "Make Aristotelian obfuscation
exegetic (explainable) and exoteric (public)." I see this as one of our
many roles.

Quality is a quanton of both DQ and SQ copermeating, commingling, etc.
There is no either SOM quality or not SOM quality! Same for 'moral' and

Steve, you ask, "how do we talk about good and bad good?" Let me give some
examples. Was Turkey's recent 7.9 Richter quake good? From Turks'
perspectives, no, it was 'bad.' From Earth's perspective, it was 'good.'
Here we see 'many truths.' Would it be better for Earth to hold its 'gas'
so to speak and later explode and destroy all Earth life? Turks have not
yet evolved their survival skills enough to deal with quakes. That is low
Value from our perspective.

We can do similar thinking on any multiversal scale. Someday we will have
to leave our solar system. Why? For similar reasons to Turkey's quake. But
for reasons scaled up dramatically, e.g., Sun's evolution to a red giant.
We need to evolve a capability to do that. Similarly, we must evolve a
capability to avoid asteroid hits on Earth and other solar/galactic
threats. If we do not, Quality assesses us at lower Value and we transition
back to quanton(DQ,DQ) for another try later. (My personal 'mystical'

Good and moral are Quality, but often perceived centrally and egotistically
by finite intellect as either/or: dichotomy(good,bad) and
dichotomy(moral,immoral). But Quality demands we adapt to and adopt
absolute change as Reality's prime edict. [Readers, please note we can
depict another SOM biform like this: centricity(bad,good). I.e., with
good at center, all else 'bad.']

Steve, in your next paragraph you already begin a good evolution away from
SOM dichotomies [biforms] toward MoQ unification of many truths.


Steve writes:

Doug, I did not send you quite a long post concerning mysticism |
metaphysics. We seem to be making some progress. No need to bog down

Doug responds:


Feel free to send it off-list if you wish.


Steve writes:

In a nutshell, I am reconsidering my 'pure' DQ definition of mysticism. A
possible solution to my koan is complementary and uncertainty.

Doug responds:

I believe MoQ's many truths solves 'nearly all' koans/paradice. I believe
that is so, especially when we include quantum memes of quanton,
complementarity, stochastic uncertainty, etc.

In general, to help us think, we can always write:

XXX quanton(DQ,SQ), (an MoQ 'tautology')
(: quantonic font equals)

and then consider what is knowable about XXX (both actual SQ and
nonactual/potential SQ), i.e., what about XXX is/could be SQ?


mysticism quanton(DQ,SQ).

For me it comes down to something like this:

mysticism quanton(DQ,SQ_perception_of_MoQ's_unknown).

To me, that helps! However, it may not help you. I hope it does help you.

It is recursive! But what do we know about reality? Reality is recursive!
Why? Planck rate absolute MoQ flux/change! [Planck rate loops.]


Steve writes:

A sharp focus on DQ excludes SQ (mysticism), and a sharp focus on SOM, or
SQ, excludes DQ (empiricism, etc). Either focus does not violate reality
as quanton(DQ,SQ). The unique position of metaphysics is that it is
structured (ie, SPoV), but it is divorced (more or less) from reliance on
inorganic / biologic SPoV (ie, 'objects'). Mysticism is not structured at
all. I have seen metaphysics as a bridge between both. Is metaphysics a
higher order context that holds both? Not sure yet.

Doug responds:


I think you slipped back into SOM a bit here. Unsure. If it is important,
clarify your first two sentences above given my remarks earlier (assuming
you find concord in my remarks). I interpret your first two sentences above
as creating an identity twixt SQ and mysticism and twixt DQ and empiricism.
I want to think that is not what you intend. Subsequent remarks are suspect
until you clarify.

In place of your word 'divorced' I would use 'Value decoupled.' Metaphysics
cannot 'be' without MoQ's bottom two levels providing Value infrastructure
and quantum nexuses to DQ, especially as I said above, at Planck scales.

Your use of 'biologic SPoVs, i.e., "objects"...' is a slide back into SOM.
In MoQ we do not refer to Value in any way as 'objective,' unless we are
attempting to help a newbie relate his old S-O ontology to our new Value
ontology. Remember? Pirsig asked us to drop our use of 'object' and
replace it with 'Value.'

Pirsig's four levels: intellectual, social, biological, and inorganic are
all SPoVs. They are a single, unified class of Value called 'SPoVs.' All
[both known and unknown] actualized reality IS Static Patterns of Value.

Someday physicists will understand THIS as their grand unification, which
indeed, it is. But this grand unification also includes an assumption of
nonseverable unification with DQ all actualized known and unknown reality
in unification with all nonactualized unknown reality.

In Aristotle's hierarchical structure, metaphysics is one of at least five
'subjects' on his 'level' under philosophy: ethics, logic, metaphysics,
aesthetics, and epistemology
. He puts cosmology, ontology, and theology
under metaphysics. I am unsure it is good to think this way as a wannabe
MoQite, but personally, I still do. It is part of my SOM legacy, I guess.


Steve finally writes:

Pirsig was quite clear that, in MoQ, moral progress moves up the hierarchy
of SpoVs towards DQ. This places empiricism, etc, 'below' metaphysics and
metaphysics 'below' mysticism, IMO.


Doug finally responds:

I agree with one qualification. If you look up 'empiricism' you will see
something like this: "Most empiricists acknowledge certain a priori truths
(e.g., principles of mathematics and logic), but John Stuart Mill and others
have treated even these as generalizations deduced from experience."

Take 'a priori' as SOM's 'deductive or deduced.' I have shown to my own
satisfaction that most mathematics and logic as used today are essentially
SOM. Any MoQ empiricism must, IMO, rise above SOM mathematics and logic.

[Dan, please note how this argument remains consistent with my argument with
Bo in my TLS post in January, 24 1998.]

(One simple example is in Quantonics we assume any classical '=' must be
replaced with our '' or an equivalent. We have not seen that anywhere
except in Quantonics. If you are interested in this topic, consider what
integral calculus does when it 'sums' an (analytic) function from zero to
infinity. Are its delta-Xs SOM objects or MoQ SPoVs? SOM is deeply
embedded in both classical and quantum scientists' most necessary and
presumed most powerful tools! Once fully recognized, this will cause a
revolution in mathematics and science almost beyond any imagination!)

Given that qualification, I agree wholly with your last paragraph.

Great post, Steve! You grabbed our attention, big time.

Many truths to you, Steve and Quantos,


"Truth is always a DQ-changeable Static Pattern of Value."

DQ: Dynamic Quality

Doug Renselle, July 20, 1998.

Quantonics Email List Message