No editorials for June, 2007. |
2007
TQS News December, 2006 through November, 2007 TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News |
||||||||||||
Month: |
JAN | FEB | MAR | APR | MAY MAY SE | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC |
You are here: |
||||||||||||
Topics: | A Novel Philosophy in Town... Hume's Dilemma... Hume's Law... |
Parallels on MACInTao, Latest Review Efforts, Quantum Computing Breakthrough, State of Union Lies... |
Apple-TV Network Hologram, Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit, Should String Theory Predict? |
Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings, William James' on "Pessimism vav Optimism" |
G5 Quad Increased Performance, Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid |
Doug shouldn't beat up on Hillary Clinton, says Mitch in
Australia and other criticisms, and A response to Mitch from DMD. |
A Quantum Love Affair, Elgato
EyeTV Hybrid, Females in Medicine |
FireFox Issue, A letter from Rick, Doug saved best for last... |
Doug's Review Progress | Jolly's Fast VNC, Dionne's Liberal Moment, and Defining Wisdom. |
On A Super Weapon against Earth, On Apple's OS X Leopard, | Pirsig vis-à-vis Dewey and Hume "...embraces radical scepticism..." ? |
This edition of TQS News is dedicated to Mitch in Australia who doesn't like Doug beating up on Hillary Clinton...
(Doug adds some punctuations. Doug adds some [] brackets. Doug adds some links. Doug corrects as many spellings as he could. Doug only sprinkles a few comments in brackets, here and there.)
Subject: Clintonistas and friends |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:29:31 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
Subject: RK |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 08:07:33 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
We delved a lot of this by practised lucid dreaming and Pirsig/Lila
type homunculus observing subconscious sex imagery. We are k~now~ings
a fragment of our greater selves, an abstraction, a relative isolate.
Happy journeys Doug,
Mitch.
Subject: square waves |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:20:33 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
New classical classification system:
The first classical split in reality is dichon(sleeping reality, waking reality)Sleeping reality is assumed false/illusory. Waking reality is real/absolute truth.
Second classical split in reality is dichon(subject/object)...read dichon(waking consciousness, waking objects)...read dichon(core waking reality, fringe waking reality). Both sides of the dichon are subcategories of 'waking reality'.
'Core waking reality' is quasi-assumed false/illusory. 'Fringe waking reality' is real/absolute truth.
etc, etc.
First split is by far the most walled-off, isolating amd damaging
to humanity. We are [quantum~]waving from sleeping reality to
waking reality, but these wavings approximate 'square
waves' due to massive classical walls. [This is a brilliant,
light~filled metaphor on Mitch's quantum~intuitions. Doug - 1Jun2007.]
By quantumizing this first classical dichon, quantum pragmadigms
can be vastly deepened, then broadened. We see this epiphany as
so HUGE that it could almost be called a whole new deeper quantum
system! Though we did use QTMs, amd any new deeper pragmadigm
has natural IMs with previous digms at this level, so, with respect
to Doug, we call it quantonics.
Best Regards,
Mitch.
Subject: RE: New 'classical' system? |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:36:47 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
Subject: RE: That is a way of viewing reality... |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:50:35 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
Subject: relativism? |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:49:42 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
Subject: Higher Beings |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:18:58 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
Mitch.
Subject: Mitch has been dichon cleansed |
From: mitch mcdonald |
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:31:59 +0000 |
To: NOFLAMEs |
BCC: |
An email from DMD commenting on
Mitch's email...
Subject: Mitch's E-Mail. |
From: DMD |
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT) |
To: NOFLAMEs |
Hey Doug!
Thanks for sharing Mitch's cordial, informative and candid letter.
As student of Quantonics for some years, we are well aware of some of Mitch's stated omnifficulties in regards to QTMs vav CTMs. Unless quantum-acculturated from birth, students have to struggle with years upon years of relentless classical indoctrinations, which become so ingrained as to be felt 'natural'.
We view 'unconscious' in these comtextings as 'habitual-rote-unthinking'; we assert through Quantum Tentative Persistence (QTP), students can, at their own pacings, and via occasional stimulus proddings from others, scale SOMitic partitionings at various levelings.
Classical habits die hard, and as Doug has said, Quantonics requires a lifetime of study and application - Quantum recapitulationings are vital! IOO, QTMs vav CTMs need to be comparatively evaluated via Pirsig's genuine metric: Better!
We evaluate-judge etc. due to quantum recognition that change is generally good, to recognize quantum-wave fluxings as our fundamental selvings is good, to recognize that QTMs are superior to CTMs, and so on.
Mitch mentions 'can't move until he breaks initial assumptions' - appears classical stuckness to us. This appears honest appraisal, but simulphasically, this admission should serve as vital impetus for enhanced studyings QTMs.
IOO, clingings to obsolete, outmoded CTMs is due partially to comtinued viewings of much Value in them, with comsequences that CTMs compete and comflict with QTMs for better, and partially because retaining habitual classical thunkings(as in sunkings) is easier than efforts required learning novel quantum comcepts. Quantum discipline is needed or else student will wallow much longer in static stickiness than should be.
We interrelate well since we studied Eastern philosophies-religions for many years and their concepts served us quite well, plus we are somewhat lazy and procrastinating. Why should we change? Fortunately DMD k-new BETTER VALUE when he saw it and quantum leaped-decisioned from classically vague Pantheism to quantum OEDCic-loopings ontology and quantum likelihood omnistributionings.
Mitch mentioned 'basically classical self', we k-now that idea of ONE fundamental self is delusional, rather we are many selvings in many comtextings on many scalings. And to recognize we can only be partially aware of our omnistributed selvings is to recognize that consciousness(on its many levelings, e.g., unconscious,subconscious, conscious, supraconscious, etc.) as SQ will forever be junior to endless vastness of DQ.
Another classical term Mitch uses is 'soul': ponder immutable dichon vav mutable quanton. IOO, 'soul' is relatively obsolete concept, compared to quanton(DQ,SQ), i.e., our 'quantum essencings'. Also mention of 'higher selves', 'inner self', etc., we k-now that in quantum reality direction and location are irrelevant! Omnidistributed-selvings are both EIMA and BAWAM compenetrating, commingling, co-in-side-ing QLOings. (Doug note: If we view comsciousnessings as both fluxings and pluralings (i.e., Bergsonian animate multiplicities,) then we can view con(m)sciousnessings and soulings similarly. We can say then that soul and consciousness can be viewed worse as static objects and better as fluxing quantons. Doug - 2Apr2010.)
IOO, quantum learning (incrementalizations of our quantum stagings) involves relatively loose creative-emerscent processings of Preparation, Incubation(Frustration), Illumination(Insight) and Verification. These processings are non-mechanical and EIMA coobsfect each other in their QLOic comminglings; quantum verification in particular, omniffers from classical verification in its preponderant subjectivity, i.e., involves more tentative intra-agreeings among selvings. Who decides? Classically, bureaucrats, teachers, preachers, administrators, politicians, specialists, experts, pundits, et. al., but those of us who are quantum savvy k~now better.
Concerning dreams, we have not discussed them at length, e.g., vivid, lucid, premonitive, nightmares, wish fulfillments, etc., but we have discussed conscious-subconscious phasicities as quanton(awake,asleep).
While we have found quantum studyings to be omnifficult at times, we can say that for most part we can say that challengings they pose are both stimulating and fun. We think that is an appropriate dynamic attitude and promotes sense of optimism that we comsider desirable when approaching anything so formidable and potentially self-defeating as Metaphysics.
We have a very bright friend who once quipped, 'We don't study Metaphysics, nothing to get my teeth into.' Well Doug, we have you, Pirsig, Bergson, James, Stein, Bohm, et. al. to thank for delivering some deep, tenacious bitings. Many scrumptious morsels tasted and to be tasted!
Many Betterings,
~DMD
Aren't these two people some kinda wonderful? None of you believed anyone was actually using, let alone living, Quantonics did you?
SURPRISE!!!
What a thrill for Doug...in his sixty-fifth year on Earth. What a fabulous thrill!
Doug - 1Jun2007.
...
Thank you for reading,
J