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 January News
Society by 'Intelligent Design,' is an even worse classical notion than Religion by 'Intelligent Design.'
Real learning, understanding, being,..., real society, religion, and subjective faith and belief evolve. As Pirsig warned, paraphrased, "Design induces mental and behavioral stuckness." We infer stux sux, thence design sux. Social design and development c. 2008 find their bases in formal, dialectical mechanics: antitheses of real Value and real Quality.
Simply, that which does n¤t evolve is stuck.
Yet, today, academe teaches us all how to stay stuck. They teach us how to use a tragedy of commons sense notion of design to live commonly in an 'Intelligently Designed' 'define-it' monistic society, practicing an 'Intelligently Designed' science of whatever, to understand their contrived 'Intelligently Designed' models of a mechanically dead reality.
Doug - 8Dec2007.
Classical 'science' measures scalarbatively its pseudo-success via its ability to 'predict.'
Doug - 20Dec2007.
First time ever, Doug accidentally watched MindWalk on cable TV.
For those of you who find Quantonics unintelligible, mentally indigestible, this movie will show you three superb actors dealing with most quantum issues' solutions which Quantonics tries to teach and innovate.
Movie was made in 1991 and stars Liv Ullman, Sam Waterston, and John Heard.
From movies.com, "Three vacationers meet by chance on the Island Abbey of Mount St. Michel in France and encounter a magical excursion into the world of ideas."
Doug had no inkling that those three people could ever do such an excellent job of conversationally broaching quantum~reality! It was staggering for Doug, intellectually and spiritually, to watch this wonder unfold.
I am profoundly affected by it and profoundly thankful those actors put such incredible efforts into making it happen.
We need more of this, and we need it now!
Academics: get up off your contentedly dead and moldy asses and make some quantum~progress!!!
Doug - 23-24Dec2007.
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
January, 2008 News:
On Doug's New Year 2008 Message, Changings are in Quantonics' Airings ...
February 11, 2008 we celebrate Quantonics' tenth anniversary of web presence; we published our first tiny site on February 11, 1998. Prior that, Quantonics was taking form, rudimentary though it was, after Pirsig published Lila in 1991.
We've come a long way, baby! Allow a tad o' review...
Doug realized that he had to show our world how Pirsig and quantum are brethren, almost siblings, at least complementary children: nature's own spawn. There was a problem though: Doug did n¤t understand quantum memes well. He intuited many of them, but most of quantum stuff, at first blush, appears self~contradictory. Doug dipped into it. It was so formidable, Doug gave up several times! But he was already infected with a ongoing, progressive metastasis of quantum~thinking. It would n¤t let go. It still won't let go.
Doug kept looking at quantum papers in Science and Nature. He read prepub papers on US' .gov site. He bought as many quantum~relevant 'lay level' books as he could find. Slowly, gradually, Doug's quantum~stage, as a growing SON hologram, emersed nexi which enabled Doug's recapitulatively accelerating progress.
Ten to fifteen years of almost totally dedicated effort...you can see it for yourself...study it for yourself...here.
It isn't done...it will never be done...done is a classical illusion...finality as Bergson shows us is a classical dialectical illusion...one among many classical dialectical illusions. What cures those classical illusions? Doug can say con(m)fidently, "Quantum~memes about quantum~reality." That is what Quantonics offers. It seems too difficult. For those of you who have already chosen your own intellectual extinction, it is. For a few others it is pure mental gold.
Most of our world doesn't recognize that yet. That is, actually, Good! It means that in five to seven generations that 'Most' will have become extinct! They are wholly lost now, without realizing it. Good for those of us who are n¤t lost.
We could, as classical scientists and fundamental religionists do, look at that as "failure." No! Metastasis of Quantonics is underway.
If it took Doug 10-15 years of dedicated effort, how long will it take people who are interested, but have full time jobs and are raising families, to absorb Quantonics?
Doug can only guess: at least decades. But our education system is slowly catching on. Martha Gilliland's efforts as 2000-2004 chancellor at UMKC (Univ. Missouri, Kansas City; Gilliland's inauguration as Chancellor on September 29, 2000; resigned under duress effective 1 January, 2005; browser search www <"Martha Gilliland" UMKC>), UChic's recent efforts on 'Defining' Wisdom, and let's n¤t forget Pirsig's 1995 paper, SODV. Countless books have been written by quantum theorists. Some of them are near lay level. Gradually, more and more folk are reading about quantum memes...Once this latches as both individual and social state-ic patterns of value in about one percent of us humans, we'll achieve a situation for more rapid growth. Doug imagines that as about a century away.
All of current academe will have to be totally replaced as antique, backward. Good! Better! In a big way academe is a huge roadblock to rapid adaption of quantum memes and memeos. We need to just "run them off the road." They too are extinct, and it is only beginning to dawn on their wholly dialectical minds.
What's our biggest road block? Dialectic! To adopt quantum memes well, we have to grasp a proem that dialectic is entirely antithetic quantum~reality. To Doug dialectic is what is wrong with our world, now, c. 2008.
In Quantonics we set out to accomplish two major tasks: Show our perspectives of Pirsig's opus, and develop some kind of lay level description of quantum reality which mimics Pirsig's MoQ.
Have we done that? Yes! And much, much, much more. "Doug, how does quantum~reality mimic Pirsig's MoQ?" Like this, MoQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ). From Pirsig's Lila we can show that more explicitly like this, MoQ issi quanton(DQ,quanton(Quality_Has_Lila,Lila_Has_Quality)). Doug's comma~nospace represents quantum~reality's included~middle: complementarity, uncertainty, Bell's inequalities, waves, stochastics, etc.
Most of you do n¤t realize it yet but massive changes are encompassing our globe and humanity's place in reality's omniverses.
Doug feels con(m)fident that Quantonics has played and will, in growing ways continue to, play a major role in what we call, "a quantum tsunami" of global change.
Can you feel that change cusping? If n¤t you simply must be numb. If you do sense this massive imminent change, good for you. That will partially enable your abilities to survive it.
Every aspect of life which we now view as stable will simply change. For all of us!
Doug is changing too. Doug needs to change too. [DMD,] Doug wants to change too. [Maggie,] Doug expects to change too. During 2008 Doug will choose n¤væl scions for his last (in this current cycle's) score. Quantonics' web site efforts may cease; there are other memes and memeos which need pursuit and clarification. There are books to finish and new ones to write. And there is love, love of life and love of one's family and closest friends...
2008 will probably be our last year in Quantonics, folks. Eleven years of a coherent set of tasks is enough for anyone.
On Granger's Choice (Selection) of John Dewey as Comparable Robert M. Pirsig ...
|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.|
Leaving Chapter one, 'Dewey's and Pirsig's Metaphysics,' we want to say to our readers that language (dialectical language) is our largest issue. Sadly language, classical language, is SOMitic. It is objective, analytic, assumes stoppability (i.e., anti-flux), excluded-middle (a proemial foundation of all classical logic), and quiescent immutability except for y=f(t) mobility. Using a language like that one can hardly describe reality! Using a language like that one can hardly practice an Art of Real Living, let alone commence an understanding of reality. Guess what though? We all do it: Pirsig does it. Dewey does it. Granger does it. Doug does it less so since he has put great efforts into developing a quantum~remediated English language, acronyms, and coined terms to make it possible to commence speakings and writings while attenuating classical English language's Parmenidian, Aristotelian, and Platonic 'objective truth' singular, active-passive voice, definite article SOMitic baggage.
At end of Chapter one Granger offers a summary list of 14 statements representative of both Dewey's and Pirsig's metaphysics. Dewey's and Pirsig's memes as delineated by Granger here are good, almost excellent. Language here, though, is problematic. A great example (perhaps exemplar), one which goes back to Pirsig's opus is list item four's use of 'events.' Pirsig said (wrote) "Quality is an event." It is a great 'state' ment, but a terrible phasement.
(Please grasp both notional and memeotic:
Even though, classically, 'event' can mean process, Pirsig's language says, "an event." It admits, to good, plurality. But it appears to treat "an event" as lisr. In quantum~reality all eventings are fluxings and n¤ne are classically localable, isolable, separable, n¤r reducible from other quanta. Simply, we cann¤t locate, isolate, separate, n¤r reduce quanta to a single event. (Essence of Heisenberg's quantum~uncertainty.) John von Neumann tried and failed. Quantum~flux recursively compenetrates (EIMA) quantum~flux (self and other) dynamically. All reality is quantum~flux. Given that quasi normative all classical logic and reasoning simply fails. Why? Classical logic and 'rational' reasoning assume reality is lisr, EEMD, and stopped (at least stoppable). Quantum~logic AKA Quantonics' coquecigrues wipes out almost all classical logic, period. Once we have done that, classical language and notions borne of it are mostly bogus. Yet Pirsig, Dewey and Granger blithely go ahead and write classically as if all is well in English language. Almost all of Doug's criticisms would melt away if those folks' works were written in a remediated or other language which supports quantum expressions, memes and memeos. That said, Pirsig is why Doug has spent decades trying to grasp issues here. Pirsig was able to show Doug in ZMM, Lila, and SODV that we have immense problems in our current understandings of reality. From Granger we learn Dewey was on a similar pathway. And Granger is superb at placing more rungs on that ladder of understanding...but their language is terrible...terrible at describing a real quantum~reality.
So, as we enter omniscussions of Chapter two, most of Doug's bountiful criticisms are about language, and after that most of Doug's complaints are that Dewey and Granger just do not grasp essentials of quantum~reality. Pirsig's middle~inclusion of DQ and SQ show that he grasped (we guess via Eugen Herrigel's, prior ZMM, Zen in the Art of Archery) a most basic quantum memeo. Granger, apparently does n¤t grasp quantum~reality's fluxial middle~inclusionings, which break nearly all classical logic. Quantum~flux makes all classical objective reasoning and rationale bogus! After that, as Bergson wrote, "negation is subjective." We doubt Granger gets that, too. Dewey didn't as far as we can tell on Granger's hearsay (EW-early works and LW-later works quotes) of Dewey.
Quantum~reality breaks classical thingking and 'language' several ways:
There is good here. Granger's chapter summary lists bring novices to a standingunder commencement of protoissues of a Value reality. Given how dialectic congenitally throws all Value away, that is progress.
Let's take a long look at Granger's DPatAoL Chapter two...
What did David A. Granger see as shared philosophy twixt Robert M. Pirsig and John Dewey?
We guess, after only 91 pages (through end of Chapter two) of reading in Granger's Dewey, Pirsig and the Art of Living: natural, empirical pragmatism.
Readers please recall that pragmatism is primarily a child of Charles Sanders Peirce ("purse") 'father of abductive pragmatism.'
Quantum likelihood omnistributionings (QLOs) are Peircean abductive. They look away from nowings and pastings toward futurings. They make hermeneutic inferencings, expect~anticipate quantum~stochastics (i.e., quantum~wavings), about whatings happenings nextings. In Quantonics we call it "coquecigrues." Abductive animate~EIMA~enthymemetic~reasoning is quintessentially radically~stochastic "quantum~logic."
|) qubits shall do.|
William James and John Dewey mostly followed in Peirce's footsteps. Here again, though, like Pirsig and Dewey, James and Dewey are wholly unalike. Pirsig and James are similar; however, in Doug's opine Pirsig and Dewey emerge from omniffering worlds. To attempt comparisons is folly (admittedly though, an incredible learning experience). Depending on one's views (Pirsig superior Dewey vis-à-vis vice versa) one comes out a relative loser. Simply, Dewey is a 'scientist.' Pirsig's antagonist is 'scientific' dialectic itself. So Granger, in Doug's opine, has burdened himself with a worrying task. Sadly, it appears and just as we surmise Dewey would have done, Granger interprets Pirsig and his opus classically. Granger appears to know squat about quanta, and Pirsig's con(m)jugation (i.e., n¤n classical wedding) of Dynamic Quality and Static Quality require a quantum~rhetorical mentality whose Value is essential flux, quantum~flux. Granger, simply, appears n¤t to grasp that quintessential. Where dogmatic objects obey Aristotle, heretical quantum~fluxings' quanta turn Aristotle into an jabbering idiot savant.
Doug agrees with memes surrounding empirical pragmatism given empiricism is of an evolutionary (Peircean-abductive, forward~looking, animate, better selection) kind. We call it "empiritheory." Clearly one of John Dewey's major strengths re: his beliefs, is his radical embrace of Darwinism. Though some aspects of Darwin are n¤t Pirsigean, some are Pirsigean: fractal~self~reference as a means of mutative replication, incredibly high spectra of variability and variation, and meliorative selection for better (although latter may n¤t be observable in small numbers of generations; generative evolution is more like 147 steps, at best, to solving a Rubic's cube). Those very Pirsigean aspects (DQ, "as the unknown and unknowable") omniffering, even absent, in Darwin we find in both Bergson (elan vitale) and Heraclitus (logos). When we mix Darwin and Pirsig, though, if one is savvy, one detects emergent quantum~reality. Ernst Haeckel saw it (in his radiolarians...radiolaria...). Mae-wan Ho saw it (in her quanton(coherence,autonomy)...)...Heraclitus (in his flux logos...), Bergson (in his flux sympathy...), James (in his "compenetrating" flux complementation...his "Percepts and concepts interpenetrate and melt together, impregnate and fertilize each other." Page 52 of 231 total, no index, Some Problems of Philosophy.), etc.
Problematic: Dewey is more of a dialectician than he is a Pirsigean quantum~rhetorician. (As we shall omniscover in Chapter two of Granger's text...Granger is a died-in-wool "radical dialectician." As Heraclitus said-wrote, "Dialecticians are blind to the logos." They cann¤t see Iht! Granger, clearly, and evidently, cann¤t see Pirsig's logos. Without QTMs it is nearly impossible. Doug - 17Dec2007.)
Aside - Why are dialecticians "blind to the logos?":
This problematic takes us back in time...far, far back in time to a belief system called gnosis (meaning somewhat redundantly Sophial wisdom...) whose hierarchy, a topos, is much omniffering Pirsig's four levels. Top down:
- pneumatic (ethereal, spiritual, isofluxial, roughly MoQ, etc. Exemplars? Buddha, Gn¤stic Jesus, Gn¤stic Magdalene AKA Sophia, Thomas Didymos, Mohammed, maybe Confucius, Gandhi, etc. In Doug's opinion Pirsig, James, Bergson, Jung, Hamann, Bruno, Brujo, Heraclitus, Cratylus, Zeno, etc., were~are ascending cowithin pneumatic qua.)
- psychic (intellectual, formal, dialectical, mechanical, 'constructive,' roughly CR, etc. Exemplars? Dialectical academics, socialists, rational intellectuals, mathematicians, relativists, pluralists, "Intelligent Designers," etc.)
- hylic (material, objective, substantial, roughly SOM, etc. Exemplars? George W. Bush, Rush Dimbaughlb, Bill EOOO'Reilley, politicians, war-mongers, mercenaries, Nazi's, evangelicals, fascists, çatholiçs, racists, homophobes, positivists, monists, bottom-feeders, hegemons, objectivists, etc.)
Second and third levels of that hierarchy, psychics-hylics, correspond what Doug today c. 2007 refers as dialecticians.
None of those three levels is analytically distinct: 'pure.' Most of us have some of all of those levels in us: quantum~reality issi phase~encodings of many radically~stochastic quantum~waves. Predominately, however, most of us are dialecticians: hylic-psychic. A tell? "Status quo is the way to go. One size, our size, fits all." Another? "Common sense." Another? "You're either for us or you're against us, and there is no middle ground." Another? "They're just deconstructionist pseudo scientists." Another? "That's absurd!" Einstein: "Quantum theory is absurd!" Feynman: "Nature is absurd." Finally, "Who cares?"
What is omnique re: pneumatics? They are quantum~gn¤stic. They practice martus~aritos (Pirsig calls it "aretè," possibly "aretê."), they "individually witness (Greek martus) personal excellence (Greek aritos and arete)," asking n¤t what will we (social-institutionally, colloseumaically) do, rather what will you (gnostic~individually) do? You vis-à-vis we, individual~intellectual SPoVs vis-à-vis social-anti-individual SPoVs. Of maximum importance here, notice how classical demos will society cann¤t, lacks you~individual qua to martus~aritos self! MoQ essence here is that classical social institutions have and show little respect for all classes of individuals. Classical social institutions worse-ship socially-approved tragedy of commons social sense 'celebrities.' Result? Individuals in growing numbers are losing respect for social institutions. As we have seen especially in recent decades social institutions are mostly inept. Why? Institutions cann¤t think; only individuals can think. What does 'social intellect' mean? Institutions run n¤t on social intellect, rather institutions run on 'legal automatic.' Thus, it is apparent, classical institutions are innately inept. Worse, classical institutional 'rules' are dialectical! Recall what gnostic Chaldeans said about rules: "Principle rules something not itself."
Doug has portrayed gnostic topos vis-à-vis Pirsig's MoQ in several other Quantonics pages, prior this Granger review:
- Bergson's Creative Evolution Topic 42
- Bergson's Time and Free Will Topic 3
- Classical vis-à-vis Quantum Religion Recommended Reading
- James' VoRE Pre Review Comments
- Jung's Triumph of Love
- TQS 2003 News
- TQS February, 2006 News
- Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm (Mae-wan is one of Earth's most renowned female physicists.)
- Pagels' Gnostic John 1.1.4 (from Pagels' (Harvard) The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis)
In that last link Doug wrote this: "Keep in mind that we can view hylic - hylically, psychically, and pneumatically. A genuine hylic, though, would deny that. Now fathom how a genuine hylic denies psyche and pneuma. That thought qua, exemplified here for you by Doug, is what Pagels intends by gnostic exegeses."
Dialecticians act like that hylic!
Pagels teaches us that we can view:
- hylic - hylically, psychically, and pneumatically, and we can view,
- psychic - hylically, psychically, and pneumatically, and we can view,
- pneumatic - hylically, psychically, and pneumatically.
Pagels uses that method, one very similar Valentinus' method: a Valentinian toposical "threefold method," to do her own gn¤stic exegeses and explains to us how only the elect, only the pneumatic could easily do all three. Why could n¤t hylics and psychics (latter, the called) easily do all three? Each level, hylic and psychic, can only hear, see, and understand reality at their unique, monistic view, level. Somehow hylics and psychics are stuck in one way, their way of thingking. In Quantonics wæ say, "They are incapable, lack qua, to extract themselves from SOM's Box and SOM's Ways of Viewing Reality." (Totally off subject here, gn¤stic methods discussed here when combined with quantum memeos of Poisson Bracketings are valuable today c. 2007 for accomplishing Doug's waveMBU.)
Doug's point here is that hylics see all only hylically, psychics see all only psychically. We refer them 'dialecticians.'
Pneumatics can see and understand all hylically, psychically, and pneumatically. That is what it means to be pneumatic. Too pneumatics can speak linguistically at all levels of topos. They can speak to an audience be it hylic, psychic, pneumatic and mixtures of those levels of topos: gn¤stics call it "gn¤stic exegeses (plural)." Dialecticians lack qua to speak to all of topos. Hylic dialecticians can only do hylic exegesis (singular). Psychic dialecticians can only do psychic exegesis.
Simply then, if you read content at those links, you grasp how only pneumatics see logos. Hylics and psychics cann¤t see logos: "they are blind to the logos." In that Mae-wan Ho link we point out that roughly 99.9% of all folk in Western culture are hylic-psychics! They are already extinct! Big deal folks! We might as well 'pragmatically' make cookies from them a la Soylent Green.
Gives n¤væl semantic head to 'agnostic' soteriology, does it n¤t? "Stupid (i.e., 'agnosis') is as stupid does." Better, "Stupid becomes as stupid is." And, "All classical, dialectical societies are stupid."
What really worries Doug is that almost n¤ne fathom (grasp and care about) classical dialectical social decay happening n¤wings as Doug is writing, and perhaps as you are reading, this web page.
Does Granger adhere dialectic in his naturalistic Art of Living? It appears to Doug that Granger is at best a psychic judging Pirsig's own topos only hylically-psychically.
Doug - 21Dec2007.
We will use that aside to explicate our criticisms of Dewey's social dialectic.
Essences of Darwinism are wholly compatible quantum~reality (henceforth QR). Too we will find, perhaps only in Quantonics and Pirsig's MoQ, essences of Pirsig's MoQ are quantum~compatible.
If John Dewey is a radical embracer of Darwinism, we should see less dialectic and more quantum~rhetoric. That is one benchmark we can use, veritably. (A huge problem as we see it: once a dialectician (almost) always a dialectician. It is just too much personal trouble and effort to change (Personally, it has taken Doug at least two decades, and Doug is n¤t yet even "an initiate."). Most humans, including Granger apparently, haven't evolved to a quantum~stage which intuits real quantum~dynamic quality and its radically animate EIMA ensemble 'crowd affectings' stochastics.)
Timings for a HotMeme "One may n¤t use dialectic to explain, exegetize, describe and understand quantum~reality! Quantum flux is Value! Quantum flux is Dynamic Quality!" HotMeme. Why? Dialectic is objective. QR issi n¤t objective, rather, QR is flux, absolute quantum~flux. Now...Doug is making a huge assumption in making those belligerent remarks: MoQ is quantum~real. If Pirsig denies that assumption, Doug will withdraw his antidialectical remarks re: Granger's 2006 book.
David A. Granger, apparent perhaps only to Doug, doesn't understand that. Granger wants to use standard academic dialectic for all Dewey-Pirsig comparisons, and it simply does n¤t, will n¤t, shall n¤t, cann¤t work. We will offer several examples of his misunderstanding, which we are sensing may have at least partially induced Granger's academic, maybe unfortunate, juxtaposition of John Dewey and Robert Pirsig. Before we attempt offering examples, allow us to offer direct quantonics script of what we mean by dialecticians' innate inabilities to understand Pirsig's MoQ:
Though...you may be in a mood to learn QTMs...if so...
As a starter, where Heraclitus, Bergson, James, Pirsig, and QR clearly offend and denigrate dialectic's metastatic mental anchorage in humanity, Dewey uses dialectic to do his revered 'science,' and Granger uses it to write his book.
Based only upon that assumed Grangerean preference for empirical pragmatism, his dialectical language and narrative preference, and leaving QR out of our picture, simply-dialectically we would have to put Pirsig, Dewey, James, and Peirce on similar levels. But Doug wouldn't par Peirce and Pirsig. Even though Pirsig hinted at it, n¤r would Doug par James and Pirsig, even though Pirsig referred James as a fellow Chautauqua traveler, a kind of philosophical soul mate.
N¤, Doug would par Pirsig, Bergson, and Heraclitus. Of Dewey, James, and Peirce James would be Doug's next choice, mainly due James' acknowledgment of flux (DQ) as real and ubiquitous. Peirce was an abductive logic specialist which begs an forward~looking included~middle, but Pirsig never uses those phrases (that we have seen): "abductive logic" and "included~middle." Pirsig does exemplify his "direct experience" as what Peirce may mean by "forward looking."
Closest Pirsig comes to Peirce's abductive logic is in his Lila, pages 103-104, prose, "In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a metaphysical term that can be replaced by 'value.' To say that 'A causes B' or to say that 'B values precondition A' is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying 'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can say 'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.' Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true than the other." We tend to partially disagree with Pirsig, now sixteen years later. A causes B is strict determinism. Under strict determinism A nor B possess even minimal sentience. Determinism drives, via ideal objectivity, all sentience out of 'material reality.' B Values A (precondition and otherwise) accords nascent sentience to B. Latter is quantum, and it is a big reason why Doug adheres most of Pirsig's opus. Unfortunately, B Values A as a precondition retains classical logics' "looking at its six." Peirce's abductive logic says, in Dougese, "learn how to start looking at your 12s." That is even more quantum! Mix complementarily Peirce and Pirsig: both give nascent sentience to B and turn its perspective from its six to its twelve. That's a potent quantum both~and! There is still trouble here, though. Classically six and twelve may be construed as linear 'opposites.' That monistically degrades a quantum complementarospective of omnirectional viewing qua.
We may infer both in Pirsig's opus however. Doug does!
Allow Doug to grind on that issue just a tad longer. What do dialecticians mean by 'experience?' Aren't they referring past? Aren't they referring "what happened?" Peirce would scream that is "non abductive." Pirsig's, James', and Peirce's experience is "direct experience at the leading edge of the train," AKA "what's happening." Former 'experience' is dialectical 'past,' which has passed and presumably 'stable.' Latter experience is rhetorical and subjunctive nowings anticipating futurings which is wholly dynamic and yet unknown. That is what Peirce intends by his use of pragmatic "abduction." Pragmatic abduction begs QR. Dialectical experience begs stoppable, stable, know legible cartesian-Newtonian-Einsteinian intended (see Doug's recent ceodE 2013 QELR of intent) 'state.' Another HotMeme "There are n¤ classical-dialectical 'states' ihn quantum~reality; there is only quantum~flux ihn quantum~reality! Quantum flux is Value! Quantum flux is Dynamic Quality!" HotMeme.
Doug makes no attempt here to belittle pragmatism. Just that there is much more to Pirsig than pragmatism. Which pragmatism is Granger speaking about when he refers Dewey? One based in past-passed experience (stuff of deduction and induction); one based in animate present~futurings (stuffings of QR)? Doug ranks Pirsig's ventures into quantum~thinkqing as vastly more important than his toying with pragmatism. In Doug's view pragmatism's one really great accord with quantum is one of helping humanity learn to avoid spending so much time, unless one is in reverse, looking "at one's six," and spend more timings "looking at one's twelve." Durant made that much easier for Doug to digest in Durant's study of James in The Story of Philosophy. Martin Ryder's link to Peirce's work on abductive logic helped Doug to own that nexus personally. Other than that tiny Venn overlap, Peirce isn't even remotely similar to Pirsig, in Doug's opine. Doug has similar feelings reading John Dewey and reading others' assessments of John Dewey. To make matters worse, Dewey apparently held Bergson's elan in low esteem, probably since Dewey saw it as a hint of religion. To Doug Bergson's elan is close kin of Pirsig's DQ. So far Doug hasn't seen any DQ emerging manifestly from Dewey's pen. Acquire this: Pirsig's DQ is quintessence of QR!!!
Doug just wants to give our readers some preliminary bases for Doug's worries about Granger's use of Dewey as a Pirsigean comparable. There is much to ponder, and yet to be written by Doug on this.
On page 65, in Chapter two on 'Metaphysics at Work,' Granger offers this observation, referring ZMM text page 221 (Granger does not tell us which edition; that page number corresponds a Bantam paperback 1981 380 total pages edition we are using.), on Pirsig's "Perhaps he [Phædrus] would have gone in the direction I'm now about to go in if this second wave of crystallization, the metaphysical wave, 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 third mystical wave of crystallization from which he never recovered."
Granger comments, "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."
That quote of Granger shows Doug that Granger simply does n¤t fathom Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. Granger keeps trying to put Pirsig's words back into SOM's Box! Why? Granger is a dialectician par excellence. That, like Dewey, is how Granger thinks. Granger's reality map is dialectic. Pirsig's reality map is quantum~metaphysics. And DQ is Pirsig's metaphysical transcendental!
What is wrong here, again, is that like some orientals and East Indians, their highest goal is, let's say, Nirvana. A purely separable dialectical 'state.' Their view is an ultimate dialectic view, e.g., either wu or yu: dichon(wu, yu). Either Nirvana or Samsara: dichon(Nirvana, Samsara). There appears to be one middle~including quanton(Nirvana,Samsara) exception called Mahayana. If you are interested read Madhyamaka Karika 25.19. (Thanks to DMD for helping Doug understand, partially, East Indian side of this enough to make that cogent comparison.)
Pirsig's MoQ simply eliminates that inane, insane, defunct and anachronous classical dialectic by doing two crucial philosophically~genius maneuvers: 1) declaring DQ undefined and undefinable, simply ineffable (yet always evolutionarily innately-partially in a always incomplete and always inconsistent (i.e., Gödelian always n¤n absolute) quantum~uncertain~pr¤cæss of being described by SQ...); 2) by straddling DQ and SQ via an quantum~holographic, coinsident, quantum~coherent, everywhere~associative included~middle. Both 1) and 2) are intentionally and otherwise simple quantum~protocursors. Mysticism never leaves us when we are in MoQ. Doug refers it as Jamesian, Sidisean "reserve energy." Mysticism is always with us in MoQ and we show that as: quanton(DQ,SQ). As you recall, traditional philosophy felt it had to always, dialectically, be 'right.' It cann¤t do that. Pirsig's MoQ sveltly attenuates that issue. MoQ issi quanton(DQ,SQ)! Reality issi quanton(DQ,SQ). Quantum~reality issi quanton(DQ,SQ). Granger doesn't get that! As a dialectician Granger, like nearly all earth humans, can only conceive this: reality is dichon(DQ, SQ). Doug.
Starting in Chapter 12 of Lila Pirsig describes his four levels of SQ. There he makes it clear that SQ is effable (ponder SQ known and unknown vis-à-vis SQ knowable and unknowable...Doug) and DQ is ineffable. But Pirsig's metaphysics take a leap, a quantum leap out of dialectic's way of seeing reality. To a dialectician SQ and DQ are analytically lisr. To Granger DQ is 'separate from SQ.' It has to be else Granger's excluded-middle SOM-Knife dialectic ceases to work. But Pirsig makes it clear that SQ emerges from DQ without 'leaving DQ.' DQ (to use William James' term) compenetrates SQ. DQ is like gravity. It affects you. It affects all atoms of which you are made. Gravity affects you and is in you. To say it simply, DQ is in SQ and SQ is in DQ. Pirsig doesn't say it that way, but if you read his narrative on his protagonist Lila, you will find him saying "Quality has Lila and Lila has Quality." Quantumly, "Quality (like gravity) is in Lila and Lila (like gravity) is in Quality." If you thingk dialectically, you will nævær understand Pirsig's opus, n¤r will you ævær understand quantum~reality.
Doug took following text segments from Quantonics' work on The SOM ISMs:
Very interestingly, and of critical importance to understanding quintessence of MoQ, Pirsig tells us,
"So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools are right on the mind-matter question. Mind is [holographic bosons are] contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is [holographic fermions are] contained in static intellectual patterns. Both mind [gluons and bosons per intera quarks and fermions] and matter [quarks and fermions per intera gluons and bosons] are completely separate [rather, quantum autonomous - 23Feb2006 - Doug per Mae-wan Ho's memeos of quantum societies] evolutionary levels of static patterns of value, and as such are capable of each containing the other without contradiction."
(24Dec2000 rev - This quote is strongly related to our epiphanies during year 2000 on Pirsig's MoQ's solutions to the Quantum Measurement Problem and the Quantum Interpretation Problem. You may also wish to re-view our Decidable Gödel Meme.)
Above, by Doug's quantum inference, is Pirsig's exegetic for what Quantonics refers as "a Mae-wan Hoesque quanton(quantum_cohera,quantum_autonomies) quantum~everywhere~included~middle~associativity." See cohera.
We almost sense Pirsig describing a hologram.
See 5-6 pages into chapter 12 of Lila, page 178 of a Bantam paperback or page 154 of a Bantam hardbound.
(Note: Pirsig is saying (within MoQ) mind and matter (Subject and Object) are of class SPoV and all SPoVs are co-within and co-con(m)taining one another. This was THE most omnifficult part of Lila for Doug to absorb. To Doug it is n¤t immediately obvious. In MoQ, all levels of SPoVs share c¤mplementary interrelationships, commingling, and mutual interpenetration. This was more omnifficult to see until Doug made a quantum science comnection. Intentionally, or unintentionally, Pirsig captures essence of a quantum world in these few words. Quantons, quantum systems which comstitute our known reality (and, formless, apparently-unlatched, our unknown reality) are of a single class of quantum 'SPoVs' all perfectly capable of "[holographically co-]comtaining each other without comtradiction." PDR)
(Note: Pirsig's statement might be clearer to a perspicacious reader if it said, "...that all schools are [partially, holographically] right on [their unique perspectives of] the mind-matter question." Read Paul Pietsch's Shufflebrain. Free text of Shufflebrain available at that link.)
(Also note: multiple ISMs viewed from within SOM appear as separate, partial models of reality their 'differences' paradoxical to a SOM mind. However, viewed from a larger MoQ perspective, paradoxes dissolve when Subjects and Objects of all ISMs merge into a single class of SPoVs, and each ISM becomes an island of quasi-truth in a larger quantum comtext. Quasi-truth because of its incomplete local 'contexts' assumed by those viewing reality from any SOM ISM's perspective. In SOM each ISM's assumed local 'context' impaired its practitioners' abilities to see a larger reality. Within SOM, each ISM vies for 'grand unifying' status. PDR)
Above text partially QELR'd by Doug - 8Jan2004.
For Quantonics adepts, having just read those paragraphs on "All are right...," it may be a good time to pause and re cognize quantum~gravity as holographic thence as quantum~holographic partial~quantum~coherence. Did you experience an Al Pacinoesque Scent of a Woman HOOHA? Doug - 23Feb2006.
Credit is due Jason Gaedtke for making Pirsig's words above unforgettable to Doug. Jason and Doug email-hashed this issue during Quantonics infancy about 1997-1998.
As we have said, Pirsig (as do we all of Western culture) has-had a problem with language in Lila. It is omnifficult to escape dialectic's linguistic stranglehold on our minds. Pirsig's "completely separate" is a massive dialectical faux pas! "How should we look at this, Doug?" Quantumly! N¤t dialectically! Brilliantly Pirsig writes above, "Mind is contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual patterns." Quantumly, both mind and matter are flux. Flux compenetrates flux. This breaks dialectic massively! Objects cann¤t and do n¤t compenetrate one another: Aristotle wrote his 'law' of excluded-middle, "A cannot be both A and not A." He was and is wr¤ng!
Flux cann¤t be "completely separate" from flux! Pirsig makes that easier to grasp when he emphasizes DQ compenetrating ubiquitously SQ. DQ compenetrating ubiquitously SQ is Carl Jung's Love Triumphant, i.e., Jung's cosmic energy perpetual and ubiquitous Libidoq. Doug - 25Oct2013. That is a metaphor of quantum~reality's n¤nactuality compenetrating ubiquitously actuality. Too that allows something which Dewey, Pirsig and Granger appear to deny: Value is in nature's SQ (material, decoherent and coherent) essence (fermions, bosons, etc.). On page 90 Granger writes that about Dewey like this,
Before we attempt interpretation of Granger's description of Dewey we have to select our con(m)text(s) for assessment. Do you want to thingk like a classicist? Do you want to thinkq like a quantumist? Let's pick (select) a key word from that quote: "material."
Next look at "material" classically and quantumly:
- Using CTMs "material" is matter, substance, concrete, objective, substantial, quantitative, etc.
- Using QTMs "material" issi fermionic~flux, energy, compenetrating, subjective, complementary, qualitative, etc.
Those are two massively omniffering world views. First one is demonstrably bogus. Second one is better and evolutionarily improving.
Which view did Dewey take? First view! How can we surmise that? Dewey says flatly that 'material' nature possesses no innate value orientation. He says all inorganics, atomics, subatomics have no innate value orientation.
But in quantum~reality photons make choices ("Marry me, marry me..."). Electrons make choices ("Marry me, marry me..."). Nuclei make choices ("Marry me, marry me..."). Indeed, quantum flux and its complement isoflux make choices ("Marry me, marry me...") at even more rudimentary 'levels' of reality! Dewey is blatantly and obviously wrong.
We just showed you above how Pirsig's B Values precondition A is quantum~selection, quantum~choice ("Marry me, marry me..."), and Pirsig used iron filings as an example. Whether Pirsig intended that as a quantum description is ambiguous, but he did write it and allowed Doug ample opportunity to interpret his words, hermeneut his semantics quantumly. It works! It's real.
Dewey is just wr¤ng folks. Dewey is incomparable Pirsig, period. Granger, at least on this issue, made a poor choice ("Do not marry, period."), a "put SOM's Wall perpetually in place" choice, a dialectical 'choice.' What would have happened if Granger had qua to thinkq quantumly? He would have rejected Dewey as comparable Pirsig on that issue! Doug - 21Dec2007.
As an antidote to this ugh-ly dialectic take a pass at Kafatos and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe, especially Chapter 9. Read Paul Pietsch's Shufflebrain. Read Bohm's works re: a qualitative nature. Read Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics.
Reality is awareness and choosings ("Marry me, marry me..."), chancings (omnitor affectationings), and changings (happily live evolution's exciting quantum~adventure) across all spectra of reality's, at least, 143 octaves of flux. And all of that is cowithin, coinsident boundless quantum~isoflux.
Flux issi in isoflux and isoflux issi in flux. SQ is in DQ and DQ is in SQ! You are in isoflux and isoflux issi in you. You are in DQ and DQ is in you! If you deny that, you are doomed to agnosis: determinate stupidity.
Begin Aside on Benchmarks:
Briefly, let's move into a more pneumatic realm of Gnosis, Autiot, and Qabala. However shallowly, Doug is a student of all three of those disciplines. Why? They all benchmark quantum~reality as energetic, cosmically energetic, and they cobenchmark Quantonics.
Using Qabala to fathom (cipher) Autiot we can use Autiot to cipher old texts written in Autiot. Imagine old texts, e.g., Old Testament, being written in a language which describes cosmic energy and its holographic~fractal~recursive SON interrelationshipings! Just as Quantonics uses quantons to do autsimilar omni~associationings.
Two symbols in Autiot are autsimilars of Pirsig's DQ and SQ. Those symbols are Aleph and Yod. Carlo Suares is Doug's mentor on Autiot and Qabala. Unfortunately Suares has a congenital distaste for Gnosis. That is understandable in any sense gnosis comes in an almost infinite array of semasiologies and hermeneutics. Let's leave that issue alone here since it is immense and very much a matter of opinion...
Suares teaches us that hylics see Yod as Pirsig's SQ and fund[[a][umb]]mentally (canonically, dogmatically, compulsorily, hegemonously, hermetically, objectively, materially, literally, dialectically, mechanically, formally,...) claim that "Aleph (DQ) doesn't exist" (Doug's inference of those comparisons by Suares). Pneumatics see Aleph (DQ) and Yod (SQ) as antinomials, but with Aleph ihn all Yod (SQ) and Yod (SQ ) ihn all Aleph. Those of you familiar with Fourth Gospel's Farewell Discourse may recapitulate Jesus' con(m)cord: "Aleph is ihn Yod, and Yod is ihn Aleph."
Benchmarks are burgeoning!
Carl Gustave Jung in his Red Book, 'Liber Primus' describes an autsimilar benchmark: 'spirit of this time' AKA Yod AKA SQ is ihn 'spirit of the depths' AKA Aleph AKA DQ. And 'spirit of the depths' AKA Aleph AKA DQ is ihn 'spirit of this time' AKA Yod AKA SQ.
Hylics got it wrong. Why? They are blinded, blindered.
Doug - 12Feb2013.
End Aside on Benchmarks.
All quantum~flux is proemially aware and has qua to select better corresponding flux's spectral center frequency and bandwidth. That sentence explains why evolution is real and all denials of evolution are simply bogus dialectical crap! Compare human's center frequencies and bandwidths with, for example, a photon's.
Isn't selection choice? Isn't choice a value orientation? Quantum~reality shows us that all manifestations of quanta make choices: quarks, gluons, photons, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. Quantum~scintillation is a subatomic value orientation which creates and alters reality itself. All scales of quantum~reality have "innate value orientations." Proemial emerscence of first SQ from DQ demonstrate ad occulos nature's innate value orientation. Evolution is an innate value orientation, each MoQ~moral~quantal increment of quantum~fluxings' changings is an innate value orientation. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality got that better even though Pirsig appears to anthropocentrically limit his four SQ levels. To Doug, they are just as real and just as valid and just as moral and just as value oriented at photon~electron QED SQ levels as they are at human SQ levels. To see recent quantum experiments on photon delayed-choice innate value orientations see our TQS News.
On page 88 of his DPatAoL Granger catches Pirsig in Chapter 12 of Lila committing a similar faux pas in Pirsig's,
Then, according to quantum~reality subatomic particles are in Pirsig's terms "living beings."
An easy way to deal with this is to say that DQ confers life essence and awareness at all scales of reality. From quarks and gluons on up... Classicists may never accept this, but it is real: it depends upon whether we call a photon's and electron's coobsfective scintillation process of finding one another "value orientations which can only be accomplished by living beings." If so, then photons and electrons are 'primitive' yet "living beings."
Dewey's dialectic "sheer mythology" assessment is kin of Einstein's dialectic "absurd," and "subjective" assessments with regard to Niels Bohr's quantum~theory (...what Einstein deemed 'subjective' aspects of Bohr's opus...that dialectical denigration is invalid...eventually it will show Einstein to be an idiot savant which he really is-was...). In those special cases both Dewey and Einstein are thingking only either-or. But quantum~reality is both~and. That part Pirsig got right on mind~matter. But wethinks Dewey, Einstein, and Granger would argue dialectically either-or, mind-matter.
Due end of year burdens and extra activities, Doug will ellipsis this effort here and pick back up on it 1Feb2008...where we left off here. There is much more to comment about in Chapter two of Granger's DPatAoL.
We are delivering this TQS News early, on Christmas Day 2007. A fabulous present to all of you. Enjoy!
Thank you for reading,
See you here again in early February, 2008!