If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

Doug Renselle's 2011-20XX Economics Feuilleton Chautauqua

Chapter Two

"Innovating Talking Points Assessing Quantum FEP hyper Classical FEP: a move from CTMs to QTMs."

Chapter One

Chapter Three

Chapter Two's Segment 11 is so large Doug decided to end Chapter Two at Segment 12.

Planned segments for Chapter Three will offer implementation of Poisson~Bracketings borne of Segment 11, Chapter Two.

Doug plans to use one Poisson~Bracket segment in Chapter Three for each talking point innovated in
Chapter Two, Segment 11, plus a composite of all PBs as final segment of Chapter Three.

Chapter Three, thus, will have a high segment count. Looking ahead...
You might imagine Chapter Three's title approximately as
'PBs of Innovated Talking Points... a move from CTMs to QTMs.'

Doug - 12Jan2011.

Chapter Two Index to Doug's Commencing 11Sep2010 Feuilleton Chautauqua on Economic [Vv]alue
Seg 1 - Everything about Economics is quantum~complementary Seg 7 - H5W is Opportunity hyper Result?
Seg 2 - A Grundlagen for Quantum Studies of Vagaries of Planning for Stability Seg 8 - H5W is Competition hyper Planning?
Seg 3 - So...What Needs to be Stable? Seg 9 - Classical Reduction vis-à-vis Quantum Production
Seg 4 - Is "Stable Survivability" an Oxymoron? 'Splain Why. Seg 10 - A Plateau's Talking Points: Financial-Economic-Political Poisson~Bracketings (31Mar2014-Doug)
Seg 5 - Is Planning for Stability Viable? Seg 11 - Talking Points' Omniscriptions~Assessments (In progress - Doug) (8Sep2011 Updates)
Seg 6 - Applying Quantum~Complementarity to Hayek Seg 12 - What is simple? What is complex? Why? 'Splain!

8-9,16Jan2011 and 29Mar2011 (punctuation)

Chapter 2, Segment 12 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

What is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain!

Doug leaves Segment 11 of this chapter, "In Progress..."

In Segment 11 we broached a way of creating talking points which help us assess whether classical
approaches to Finance, Economics and Politics (FEP) are better than quantum approaches.

Thus far, it appears to Doug anyway that, quantum is winning.
But perhaps that is only Doug's quantum~bias lurking and peeking through.
We leave it to you to make your own individual assessment.

In our process of describing and innovating our talking points we encountered some other issues including: innovation of quantum~politics,
a page on Finding One's Inner, and a huge issue of What is Simple? What is complex? Why?

Doug wants to use this segment of Chapter 2 to attempt answers to those queries via quantonic exegesis.

Before Doug tackles those queries in detail, allow him to bottom line them in a most dramatic and yet comprehensive manner:

Flux is simple. State is complex.

"Doug, who said (wrote) that?" Henri Louis Bergson in his globally famous Time and Free Will.

"Doug, did he say it that way?" No! Rather Bergson wrote, paraphrased, "Spontaneity is simple and inertia is complex."
So you ask, "Doug, did he explain?" Well, Bergson always explains and does so better than anyone else Doug has ever read.
Like this:

"Spontaneity explains inertia, but inertia cannot explain spontaneity." Let's do that using Doug's more quantum semantics:

"Flux explains state, but state cannot explain flux." Too, "change explains status quo, but status quo cannot explain change."

Let's do it again with other semantic laden words:

"Quantum explains dialectic, but dialectic cannot explain quantum."

Now that is powerful!!! So powerful it is easy to blow by, pass up its incredible power.

As an example, Feynman's words, "Nobody understands quantum~mechanics."

Let's get really blatant: "Quantum understands dialectic, but dialectic cannot understand quantum."

Now using Doug's and Bergson's exegeses of "Simple and Complex," what can we say about Feynman? Would you agree that we can now call him a dialectician?

Why can hardly anyone understand quantonics? More than 99.9% of humans on Earth CeodE 2011 are dialecticians. A major catastrophe for humanity.

"Doug can you give us an exemplar of someone else who understands this issue of "flux can explain state, but state cannot explain flux?"

Best exemplar of which Doug is currently aware is Irving Stein in his fabulous text The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics.
Stein wrote this, as quoted in Doug's review of that simply incredible text book:

Classical physics has no way to deal with the concept of change.
(i.e., "...the classical object cannot give rise to a non-contradictory concept of change." p. 96.)
This is very similar to saying, "Classical objects cannot give rise to memeos of quanta and quantization."
Without quantization there is no scintillation, and without scintillation there is no reality! Doug - 1,25Aug2011.
"The concept of change therefore makes sense only as a quantum mechanical concept."

All of reality is flux, quantum~flux.

"Doug how can we be assured that your phasementing is normatively factual?"

Quantum~scintillation borne of quantization is ubiquitous. When one looks at anything, one sees photonic scintilla.
When one hears a sound, one is hearing phononic scintilla. And so on...

Without quantized quantum~flux there are no scintilla so we would not be able to sense actuality.
There would be naught to see, to hear, to smell, to touch, etc. There would be n¤ gravity!!!

That we can sense actuality is normative SEP of existence and perpetuity of real quantum~fluxings as essence of reality.

Doug - 1,25Aug2011.

What Stein is explaining here requires Doug's innovative extension. We need two quantum enthymemes:
1) Planck's clock turned on as change impetus, and 2) quantization as "packet quanta" implementing
quantum~reality's absolute and perpetual change. Stein didn't explain that overtly.

Actual Stein quotes appear in quote marks. Other text is Doug's writing in his review of Stein's TCoOatFoP.

David Bohm would alter our second quote of Stein like this:

"The classical concept of change therefore makes sense only as a quantum n¤n~mechanical comcept."

Doug agrees with Bohm.

Now what is Doug's distilled quantum~essence of all this?

Classicists AKA dialecticians religiously believe in 'state.' They believe reality is 'state-ic.'
They believe reality is absolute and perpetual state.
Quantum~reality shows us that they are simply wrong. Why?
Dialectic as a means of thing-king is simply bogus...period.

Begin 9Jan2011 aside:


Dialectic dogmatically believes that it is 'simpler' when it zeroes h~bar, i.e., turns off Planck's clock. Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac explained this to us.
It is a kind of classical reduction by disabling flux and thus change and thus quantum~uncertainty by disabling Planck's quantal clock.

So, dialectic disables self by making it impossible for dialectic to explain flux. Dialectic reasons that if you disable flux, then flux cannot 'exist' in dialectic's mythos.
Dialectic keeps its 'believers' in dialectic's SOM Box mythos by disabling those believers and itself by disabling quantum~flux!

That explains Dr. Irving Stein's "...the classical object cannot give rise to a non-contradictory concept of change."
He might as well have written, "...dialectic cannot give rise to a non-contradictory concept of change."
You should see now that Doug has made it apparent why dialectic itself is simply bogus...period.

If you study dialectic you grasp one of its essential features: dialectical contradiction is its quintessential method of disproof.
It reasons that whatever cannot be perpetually contradicted has to be statically and independently 'true.'
Therefore a single contradiction is direct evidence of total falsity and total absence of verity. (See Doug's efforts on quantum memeos of partiality.)
So dialectic's absoluteness is completeness as "states all truths," and consistency as "always states the truth."
We evidently see 'state' and 'monism (i.e., the truth).'

Doug has shown elsewhere, based on Bergson's "two of dialectic's self delusions" (stability and independence) of classical reasoning,
that dialectical 'contradiction' may only be established when its mythos canonically presumes 'stability' and 'objective independence.'
See Doug's QELR of complement, especially quantum~complementarity as a cure for dialectical 'contradiction. Doug - 26Nov2012.

Dialectic's presumption of 'stability' is one of its 'reasons' for zeroing h~bar, turning off Planck's clock, disabling quantum~flux.
Dialectic's mythos dies as soon as it turns h~bar on. As soon as it admits quantum~flux is real!

Doug k~n¤w~ings n¤ less ambiguous way to say and write why dialectic is, again, simply bogus...period.

End 9Jan2011 aside - Doug.

Quantumists of Bergsonian, Jamesian, Peircean, Rensellean, Heraclitean persuasions believe (actually understand) reality issi absolute flux.
They understand reality issi flux. They understand reality is absolute and perpetual change.
Quantum~reality shows us that they are simply right (better, and hyper classical notions of 'state'). Why?
Flux can explain state. State cannot explain flux. Therefore, and again, state is bogus...period.
It presumes 'totalitarian, Keynesian 'stability' as absence of flux.'

Politically this is of enormous import since all nations who refer selves, "states" have declared their own innate bogosity.

Politically, they have 'totally' disabled themselves!
Radical, formal, dogmatic, OSFA totalitarian socialism run amok.
Extinction of political 'state' is flux~quanta's evolutionary mandate, and
ultimate death is price paid by all dialectical systems.

Goodbye dialectic. Goodbye Keynesianism.


Doug wants to say and write more here, but digest that for a couple of days while Doug
continues work on Segment 11, and prepares to do PBings of its contents in Chapter 3.

To be continued...

8-9,16Jan2011 and 29Mar2011 (punctuation), 6Jun2011 (point to PBings completion in Chapter3)


Chapter Two Index

16-18,20-26,28-29Dec2010 - 1,9Jan2011

Chapter 2, Segment 11 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Talking Points' Omniscriptions~Assessments

This segment will take several days. We will offer updates progressively so you can follow in a more gradual, perhaps easier mode.

As you fathom this table's comparatives, keep in mind that we are comparing classical to quantum and vice versa.

Doug's key assumptions in doing these comparisons include:

  • Henri Louis Bergson's denigration of classical-reality's illusory assumptions:
    • reality is stable,
    • reality is objective,
    • objects are independent (classical middle-exclusion), and
    • classical negation is ideally objective.
  • Gnosis' claims that "monism is deceit," and "principle rules something not itself."
  • Pirsig's declaration that classical dialectic represents "...a genetic defect in human reason."
  • David Bohm's assertion that reality isn't mechanical, rather is a holographic (thus pluralistic ensemble of islandicities) "implicate order." Affirmation of Bohm's assertion by Mae-wan Ho's "coherence of autonomies."
    • "Coherence" analogous Bohm's intra~implicate~order "pluralistic ensemblings," and
    • "Autonomies" autsimilar "islandicities."
  • Heraclitus' quotes, for example, "dialectic is war," "classicists do not understand the logos," etc.

    • "On this account which holds forever men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it." [B 1] (Diels Kranz B-Texts)

      Here Heraclitus exposes only a tip of one largest th~¤ught iceberg of cosmic understanding. When we have researched and studied well enough, we might begin to grasp what Doug just wrote about his quote of Heraclitus.

      What is "...this account?" Simply, the logos. Heraclitus is clearly a gnostic and Doug would even propound, "A quantum~Gn¤stic."

      Gn¤stics say, "Those who cann¤t find their inner do n¤t understand the logos, '...this account.'" In what general way can we refer these people who are lacking gnostic qua? They are dialecticians. They are stuck. They are dead. They are extinct. They are outside the logos. They do n¤t understand "...the account."

      Which of us do have qua to begin to understand the logos? Several appellatives suffice: (we must understand, we must standunderq) Henri Bergson, William James, Mae-wan Ho, David Bohm, Robert Pirsig, Qabala (ref. Carlo Suares), Autiot (as a quantum~cosmic 'language' of energy), and cobenchmarkings of Quantonics' quantum~philosophy.

      "So, Doug, what is Heraclitus saying?" The logos holds forever. This account (especially given in Autiot and hermeneuted by Suares' Qabala), holds forever. Dialectical humans cann¤t comprehend the logos. Both with and without Bergsonian durational opportunity. Society relishes dialectic and thus acculturates its constituents to disable their individual qua to "understand the logos."

      This disabling of humans by dialectical society is thorough. They cann¤t cognize the logos let alone re cognize it.

      However, there is a new philosophy in town... Doug - 23Dec2010. See Doug's What is Gnosis? and his What is Qabala?

    • "For that reason you must follow what is common. But although the account is common, most men live as though they had an understanding of their own." [B 2] Ibid.

      We have a plethora of issues here, but I believe we can use perhaps both Bergson and Suares to make headway. Let's start with two of their key persuasions, one each.

      Bergson: "Flux is simple. State is complex." See Bergson's Time and Free Will Topic 29, p. 141.

      Suares: The logos AKA Heraclitus' "the account" is better described (quantum~omniscribed) by Qabala's cosmic energy language AKA Autiot. Suares paraphrased by Doug. Read his Trilogy and his Second Coming of Reb YhShWh.

      Both of these geniuses offer quantum~philosophy a multiverse of favors. Bergson shows us that we need at least two ways of describing reality: one for flux (quantum) and one for 'state' (classical). In our B2 quote of Heraclitus only two words he uses twice: is and common. Doug has spent a lot of time comparing classical 'is' and quantum issi. Doug cann¤t recall ever omnistinguishing classical 'common' from quantum c¤mm¤n other than to QELR consensus. Bergson and Suares in Doug's opine are suggesting an ostensible need to do so now.

      Bergson makes it easy! Classical 'common' is 'state-ic.' Quantum~c¤mm¤n is flux~ic. 'Common' is analytic and thus ideally dogmatic through its immutability. C¤mm¤n issi quantum~stindyanic over a full range of (only positive, n¤n negative) quantized Planck flux from almost zero change per unit reference up to Planck's rate and its harmonics.

      We already surmise Heraclitus' thinkqing as essentially quantum since his "the account" describes cosmic energy as flux. Doug feels comfortable then in claiming we can hermeneut Heraclitus' uses of 'common' as c¤mm¤n. Key here is that his quote's intended semantic is one of quantum~flux, n¤t one of "men's own [dialectical, Error prone] understanding" of classical 'state.'

      Doug does n¤t want to put words in Heraclitus' mouth, n¤r his pen, but it is informative here to do so: "For that reason you must follow semasiologies of cosmic energy, cosmic flux. But although the account is one of cosmic flux, most men live as though they had a dialectical state-ic interpretation of their own." Our red bold is what other gn¤stics refer as Error in interpreting and understanding the logos.

      Doug - 29Dec2010. (Doug will direct his next few days of effort to creating a new web page primer entitled, How to Find Your Inner. We should return to a process of finishing Chapter 2's Segment 11 early in January, 2011.)

    • "War is father of all, king of all: some it shows as gods, some as [w¤]men; some it makes slaves, some free." [B 53] Ibid. Doug's brackets. Note too, we could substitute children for [wo]men.

      Doug's take-away on this quote finds its bases in an obvious (perhaps only to Doug) quantum complementation by Heraclitus (whom Doug assumes is a gnostic) of complementationings(war,(gods,(humans(free,slaves)))). War makes gods. War makes humans both free and slaves.

      According to our [B 2] work just above most 'men' treat war as dialectical. So humans are then ideally, mathematically, formally, mechanically 'divided' by war as dichon(free, slave), either free or enslaved. Permit Doug to classify this as 'warc.' Warc offers ideal bifurcation of classes of humanity: "You are either for us ('free') or you are against us ('enslaved')." As we can see, most 'men' have their own dialectical-static interpretation of war as 'warc.' To Heraclitus this is an perfect exemplar of dialectic's Error of interpretation using 'oppositive' bivalent thing-king.

      5Jul2013 - Update:

      Obtain how "You are either for us ('free')..." actually is dialectic's freec which is slaveryc to Error's OSFA dogma and tyranny. We may adeptly fathom a quantum Value~assessment tetragramation: freec, freeq, slavec, slaveq. See our QVH Table exegesis of Value. Also see our quantum~assessmentings of Value. Doug - 4Feb2016.

      But logos, account, Suares, quantum~reality all deny dialectic as invalid, failed, pseudo, facile, ersatz, bogus, etc. Suares would say that war isn't 'oppositional' dialectic, rather warq is antinomialismq. He would say further that war as antinomialism is nature attempting to understand Hærself. Nature is one (see [B 50] ibid.). Nature as one has only itself to compare, so nature heretically 'decided,' 'chose' to take Hær quanta and scintillation~compare (omnitorq) them evolutionarilyq in ensembles of two. Recall Jesus in Thomas Gospel saying, "What will you do when you become two?" Answer, you will become able, capable of assessing self as relatively better and relatively worse: this is essentially what it means to be gnostic. HotMemeGnosis self~assesses individuallyq in imitative~reimagings of Hær. HotMeme™. (Doug is~as a self declared Chaldæan Quantum~Gnostic garners that HotMeme™.)

      Becoming two, according Suares, is antinomialism. It permits Hær to compare aspects of Hærself to (aut)similar aspects of Hærself. Why? To evolutionarily assess better. This kind of antinomialismq assumes both flux and middle~inclusion (EIMA) of said flux quanta. This kind of antinomialismq abets and betterships both logos and account.

      But most 'men' see antinomialismc as simple dialectic. This kind of antinomialismc assumes objective state and middle-exclusion (EEMD) of all static (dead: Yod without Hay) objects. This kind of antinomialismc (actually pure dialectic) denies and hates change and choice as heresy.

      Gnostics view warq as antinomialismq of two in one. All dialecticians view warc as hatred of heresy. Dialecticians hate Ch3ings.

      All quanta are antinomialq all quanta! No two energy~welling packets of quanta are identical: their phasingsq (of scintillation) may be rqcs~assessed better and less so. Doug calls this "Value."

      Warq assesses Valueq! Warq is parentage of all perpetual~ubiquitous recursive evolutionaryq processingsq through antinomialismq! Antinomialism is always and everywhere Valueq assessmentings.


      Readers familiar with Doug's recent efforts de(omni)scribing Carl Jung's Red Book Plate 127: 'Love Triumphant' (AKA Libido Triumphant), may well perceive Doug's omniscriptionings of 'war' autsimilar Doug's omniscriptionings of Jung's artwork mnemonic of Libido. Doug offers several comparative exegetics:

      • "...all quanta are antinomialq all quanta,..." e.g., quanton(libidoq,warq),
      • Jung's Libido may be (E)wellings~omniscribed by Aleph's "wavings of lifeings" tough loveq (as warq) on Yod,
      • Aleph's up to Planck rate GoG hammer (warq~chaosq) against Yod resting on Aleph's anvil (peaceq~equilibriumq),
      • Metaenthymemetic comparisons, i.e., partial~quantum~complementary~antinomials, of:
        • libidoc vaving warc and libidoq vaving warq, and
        • libidoc vaving warq and libidoq vaving warc,
      • etc.

      See if you can map vov, VoV, Vov, and voV onto those four libido~war metaenthymemes.


      Doug - 27-29Jun2013, 30Jun3013, 5Jul2013.

    • "Listening not to me but to the account, it is wise to agree that all things are one. " [B 60 see war and peace below quantons(peace,war) as quantum antinomial~complementarity, and too, perhaps B 53] Ibid.
      Thence, "[Dialectical men] They do not comprehend how, in differing, it agrees with itself -- a backward turning connection, like that of a bow and a lyre." [B51] Ibid.
      Too, "The path of up [good] and down [evil] is one and the same." [B 60] Ibid. See Doug's December, 2015 retranslation of Sepher Yetsira Chapter VI, Verse 2, Word 25, "A Lesson in Good and Evil."

      To any dialectical mind these quotes of Heraclitus seem oxymoronic, contradictory, paradoxical, even insane. Such is an indictment by classical mind at war with quantum~nous, quantum~stagings. What is a typical assessment we hear from said classical mind? "Absurd." Dialectical 'state' and 'stux' calling quantum~flux "absurd." 'State' assessing evolution's absolute change as "absurd." Plato, mimeing Parmenides, did this by claiming, "change is but an illusion."

      Allow Doug to put words in Heraclitus' pen and mouth again: " is wise to agree that all hologra[[il][m][ph]]ing EWings are both autonomous and coherent." [B 53] quantum~paraphrased.
      Doug would use Heraclitus' bow and lyre as exemplars and add a lyrist as agent of musical evolution: three in one, yet all autonomous, yet all coherent in making music. Ostensing that metaphor to all of Nature, "We are ihn Hær and Shæ issi ihn us, all coherent (one) and all autonomous (many)." All those coherent interrelationshipings are complementaryq antinomialq one another "...up issi ihn down and down issi ihn up," Value~assessing one another perpetually, ubiquitously. Fathom Doug's usages of 'issi' as perpetually~evolving antinomialq Value~assessing quantum~interrelationshipings of EWings.

      Doug - 6,8Jul2013.

    • "The path up and the path down is one and the same." [B 60] Ibid. Heraclitus issi showing us and telling us about quantum~antinomial~complementarity. This potent meme destroys dialectic, period! When we move into quantum~reality we denigrate classical opposition, contradiction, negation, logic, etc. Fluxq issi cruxq, stuxc suxc! Doug - 10Dec2015.

It issi a crucial 'secret' of Qabala which treats Sof (and other Aut) as antinomial~complementarityings of self.

This diagram issi Doug's attempt to help you understand that Qabalic 'secret:'

See Veyn and Beyn antinomialq quantum~ontologies at finalNoun.

That graphic shows us that everything in quantum~reality iss flux. Flux goes both up and down.

What does that tell is a key feature of quantum~reality which classical reality denies?

QR issi a metabolic reality! QR issi metabolic: both anabolic~up cycles and catabolic down cycles, both livings and dyings, evolutionq!

Everything including all Autiot in Qabala are metabolic: they antinomiallyq have their ups and their downs. Classically it appears as self con(m)tradiction.

However, it issi a key feature of QR.

Thinkq about it! State has noc metabolismq! State, SOM, is dead, uncognate, di~ssonant. QR issi aliveq, awareq, comsciousq!

An easy experiential allegory issi an Earth day! Light issi ihn Dark and Dark issi ihn Light. A powerful quantum~tell, a quantum~truthing!

Too, heat issi ihn cold and cold issi ihn heat.

Gravity issi ihn matter and matter issi ihn gravity.

Energy issi ihn time and time issi ihn energy.

Living issi ihn dying and dying issi ihn living.
(Thinkq of chrysalisbutterflycaterpillarchrysalis life~death cyclings.)

Wavicle issi ihn wave and wave issi ihn wavicle..., and on and on and on...


Biblically Jesus, ihn his farewell discourse told his disciples, paraphrased, "I am ihn you and you are ihn me."
hnclusion, antinomial~complementarityq!
Blows bloody hell out of either-Or'Aristotle the sillygist.

Doug - 17-18Jan2016.

 o And "One should know that war is common, that justice is strife, that all things come about in accordance with strife and with what must be." [B 80] Ibid.

Jonathan Barnes, in his Early Greek Philosophy, describes Heraclitus' views on these two quotes like this, "The generated from fire and it is consumed in fire again, alternating in fixed periods throughout the whole time. And this happens by fate. <Paragraph Break> Of the opposites, that which leads to conflagration is called agreement and peace. The change is a path up and down, and the world is generated in accordance with it." Page 107.

Doug takes issue with Barnes' use of dialectic's classical 'opposition.' Fluxq cann¤t mathematically, by ideal negation (impossible), 'oppose.' Fluxq can mix and cohere, superpose and cancel when entangled, but never classically 'negate.' This quantum 'fact' Essene~tially destroys all notional classical mathematics!!! Doug is unsure whether blame falls on translation, possibly inured dialectic of translators and interpreters...?

Heraclitus (in Doug's view) sees reality as flux. As such, then, any usage of 'opposite' in any classically ideal negational sense is bogus, period. Again, see Bergson's "Negation is Subjective."

Fluxq complementsq fluxq. Perpetual quantal~scintillating flux~evolutionary complementationq implies antinomialismq. Classical notions of negationc are subsumed by quantum~memes of complementationq and antinomialismq. Ditto oppositionc. Ditto independencec. Ditto contradictionc. Ditto proofc. Ditto truthc.

Doug also assumes 'fire' is a high energy flux meme. Further, actual quantum~flux' n¤nactual antinomialq complementq is isofluxq (~Jung's "spirit of the depths...").

So in place of 'same' Doug would substitute "The path up and the path down are quantum~complementary~antinomials." Essene~tially and paraphrased, "Up issi ihn down and down issi ihn up." In ancient Greek linguistics this may have carried a tenor of 'sameness.' That appears understandable.

Serious readers in Quantonics fathom how much effort Doug has put into quantumly exegetizing equilibria and chaos. Much of that effort may be brought to bear here, again via paraphrasing of Heraclitus.

First allow Doug to apply that opus to [B 80] as, "One should know that chaos is common, that justice is equilibrium, that all things come about in accordance with equilibrium and with what must be." Doug assumes that 'what must be' isn't a determinatec predicationc of future, so 'what must be' antinomially begs a QELR as fateq.

Now do~due that again using Barnes' interpretation, "The generated from flux and it is consumed in [iso]flux again, alternating in fixed[?] periods throughout the whole time. And this happens by fateq. <Paragraph Break> Of the antinomial~complementaritiesq, that which leads to equilibrium is called agreement and peace. The change is a path up and down, and the world is generated in accordance with it." Doug's brackets, subscripting, and italicization.

Doug remediates war with chaosq and conflagration~strife with equilibriaq.

8Jul2013 - Doug.

  • Carlo Suares' profundity re " as direct experience of immortal consciousness" which says directly to Doug that reality is itself conscious and that is how Iht middle~includes all of us. Notice that this explains plainly how we have intrinsic qua to tap into reserve energy of our cosmos' immortal consciousness. Compare this to what Danah Zohar writes about "...classical 'physics' of reality being unable to describe consciousness." Compare Doug's quantum~empiritheory.
  • Jesus' (the Jew AKA Reb YhShWh) farewell discourse omniscriptions of quantum~middle~inclusion as, "I am in you and you are in me. I am in God and God is in me. Therefore you are in God and God is in you."
  • Doug's assumption of absolute change attended by melioration of quantum~uncertainty as stochastic and thus n¤t 'absolute.'
  • Doug's assumption of absolute motion. See his Quantum Pendulum web page.
  • Doug's assumptions of absolute change and motion driving his further assumptions regarding these key quantum~relevant features:
    • partiality,
    • enthymemeticity,
    • islandicity borne of,
    • gradiencings of wave~energyings interrelative (i.e., quantonic, thus Bohmian hologramic) autsimilarityings as quantum~reality's omnitorings of change and equilibria, (Doug - 8Sep2011)
      • memeos here of:
        • partialqA absence of change,
        • partialqP presence of change,
        • thus gradience of hologramic EWings' autsimilarityings of islandicq, up to Planck rate, ensemblings of evolving quantons(scin,quan), key~enabling holographic:
        • from which we may infer gradienceqP of equilibriaqAP, (Doug's Second Plateau Goal in a sense...)
          • Allow Doug to clarify his use of subscripts here:
            • By "gradienceqP" Doug intends "quantum~presence of quantum~partial gradience."
            • By "equilibriaqAP" Doug intends "quantum~absence~and~presence" in regards equilibria.
            • Put them together as "quantum~presence of partial gradience of quantum~absence~and~presence of quantum~equilibria." We obtain quanton(partial_presence,partial_absence) of equilibria and their quantum gradiencings. Comsider an ensemble of quanta all having omniffering gradiencings of presence (local, islandic equilibrium) and omniffering gradiencings of absence (local, islandic chaos) of equilibria. Said ensemble has omniffering partial gradiencings of presence and absence across all of its comstitua.

              These quantum~comcepts carry massive import: strategic, tactical, and operational in terms of system theory. It shows us that ensemble systems may have islands of greatly varying combinations of chaos and equilibria. An example is, "Just because entire world's banking and money systems fail, doesn't mean said world itself fails." You have probably been around financial types who think finance is more important than Quality~manufacturing, ~marketing, ~staff, and ~management. LOL. Doug's view is we throw cartel banks away and we'll all individually be better off! Why? One size socialism doesn't fit all, and 'no one,' especially 'One World Order,' can impose it, regardless. When they attempt to impose it we're gonna have lots of fried green tomatoes. Sweeney Todd metastasis! Quantum 'V' for Vendetta. Elite [Eleat] Laura Soylent Green. Doug - 22,27Jul2012.
        • from which we may infer EWings' autsimilarityings' quantum~relativityings of NTE and FFE islandsq of equilibriaq,
        • etc.
    • reversibility only as (classical dogma's specific) local and intra island classical apparition belied by more general quantum assumptions of absolute motion and change,
    • general irreversibility as an assumed comsequence of absolute quantum~motion and quantum~change and quantum~evolution,
      • please do n¤t take this apparent 'generality' of irreversibility as a çatholiç, universal, 'sign of monism' as classicists [in]tend,
        • there is n¤ classical single 'arrow of time,'
        • there is n¤ classical 'globalism,' AKA 'universalism' like GUTs and ToEs,
        • there is n¤ 'One World Order,'
        • etc.
      • absence of classical 'monism,' AKA 'universality' in quantum~reality is a potent tell of quantum~heterogeneity, quantum~pluralisms of islandicities,
      • quantum~pluralityings have many timings, many spacings, many massings, many gravityings, many di(omni)rectionings, etc.
      • compound cycloidings of nature offer partial exegeses of quantum~reality's many ensembles of manyings,

        "Mixing All Things in All."


        Fractal recursion should be apparent here in quantum manyings of manyings.
      • as we may begin to fathom our manyings are quantumly~fractal: gnostically both islandic~individual coherent and autonomous, autsimilar, yet un(omn)ique, even as ensembles,
      • we see ad occulos Mae-wan Ho's quanton(coherence,autonomy): both herænce issi ihn autonomy and
        autonomy issi ihn c¤herænce.
      • Doug - 31Aug2011.
    • both large gradience evolutionary FFE changings in islandic quantum~equilibria and small gradience apparencies of evolutionary NTE 'stability' in islandic quantum~equilibria,
    • quantumists omnistinguish:
      • quantum~equilibria as absolute change, and
      • classical-equilibrium as absolute state. (Doug - 8Sep2011)
    • changeq can explain statec; however, statec cann¤t explain changeq, therefore:
      • equilibriaq can explain equilibriumc; however, equilibriumc cann¤t explain equilibriaq,
      • see Bergson, TaFW, topic 29, p. 141,
    • etc. Red text updates by Doug, 30Aug2011.
  • Doug's assumption that Autiot is a quantum~energy language and scihænce omniscribing quantum~reality. Doug also assumes that Autiot's purpose is to quantum~omnify spiritual~beliefs and scihæntihfihc~beliefs.
  • Doug's understanding that Essene Jesus' Autiot~grounded Gnosis is a benchmark of Doug's Quantonics, and vice-versa.
    • Autiot as a language of our cosmos' spiritual energy,
    • Quantonics' offering a English language remediation autsimilar Autiot (students note that Quantonics lacks Autiot's intrinsic Aut symbol~level quantum~self~other recursion (i.e., Aut symbols are self~other everywhere~associatively and holographically middle~including 'spelled' using self~other Aut symbols)...Doug views this as quanton(strength,weakness) of Quantonics),
    • Autiot and Quantonics as co-benchmarking, sorso~benchmarking quantum~modalities which:
      • help individuals find their inners, and thus
      • understand the logos (as Heraclitus would say, "...understand cosmos' account of its own conscious energy")
      • latter which assists one's inner to grasp both Gnosis and Suares' versions of Qabala.

Honestly, Doug has to say that this list of his explicit assumptions is incomplete. Too,
Doug likely enjoys a list of implicit assumptions with which he is profoundly unaware.

With that, please enjoy perusing Doug's efforts here on your behalf:

©Quantonics, Inc., 2010-2030
Worse Better Talking Point

Quantum Comparatives


Classical Comparatives
 Talking Point



Almost nothing about quantum~reality is classical. It omnistinguishes itself from classical notions in countless ways. For Doug, that is what these talking points are about, especially in terms of building cases for better ways of thinking about Value. Specifically, here, Economic Value.

Few absolutes 'exist' in quantum~reality. Classicists count among their dialectical mesmera many absolutes.

Some notable quantum quasi~absolutes include:

  • change,
  • middle~inclusion, and
  • everywhere~associativity.

Change as an absolute simply destroys classicism's absolute of 'state.'

Middle~inclusion as an absolute wholly wilts classicism's absolutes of separability and independence.

Everywhere~associativity (a kind of absolute dynamic interrelationshipings holographicity) wipes clean classicism's slate of 1:1 determinate cause-effect y=f(t) 'interactions.' A great exemplar from recent history is CO2 as a anthropogenic unit (1:1) cause of 'global warming.' Quantum~reality shows us directly that you have to be a complete moron to believe that.

Change shows us that static analyses are no longer generally valid tools.

Middle~inclusion replaces classical either-or with quantum both~and.

Everywhere~associativity AKA holographicity blends all things (i.e., all quantum~energies) including homogeneities (monisms) and heterogeneities (pluralisms). Gnostically this is referred, "Mixing all things in all." See Elaine Pagels' Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis. Biblical holographicity! Doug.

Quantumly then, we say, "Monisms are in pluralisms, and pluralisms are in monisms." These quantum blendings of fluxing (energy quanta) monisms and pluralisms aren't classically mechanical, formal, objective, etc.

In Quantonics script we write quantons(pluralism,monism). We see directly both~and middle~including holographic~interrelationshipings among all monisms and pluralisms.

Pure dialectical monism is impossible which elicits Gn¤sis' "Monism is deceit." Doug might add, "Monism per se is deceit."

Doug - 25Dec2010.

pluralisms of monisms monism

Classicists tend to view reality dialectically, so they perceive "either a monism, or a pluralism."

Classically, no way can reality be both a monism and a pluralism.

Non global unification (monism) within small and local groups is often better.

See Danah Zohar's Quantum Society, Chapters 11 and 12.

Local monism can easily conflict with other local monisms. Which monism is the monism?

Trouble here is that classicists appear incapable of grasping a larger means of organization as a plurality of many monisms. In a way this is essentially 'objective relativism,' however, its name breaks all classical 'principles' of dialectic.

To any classicist 'university' is superior any 'diversity,' any 'omniversity.'

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse

Quintessentially, Planck's clock is what we mean by quantum~reality.

Quantum~reality is packets of quanta. Quanta are flux changing at up to Planck's frequency which we can approximate classically as 1043 alternations per unit reference.

What makes quantum~reality so powerful, though, is that it is 'quantized' at up to Planck rates.

Each quantum is its own packetized island of energy. There are unlimited packets and this is what makes quantum~reality a pluralism, a vast heterogeneity of quanta.

These quanta come in at least four varieties of quantum~coherence and quantum~entropy. Iso variations are how Nature immeasurably hides from us. Co variations are bosonic. Deco variations are fermionic. Finally, we have enormous variations on mixtures of those.

We may view Iso variations as pure quantum~coherence. This is quantum~realities' ultimate monism which is also a pluralism of all possible flux rates isopacketized and isoquantized (latter two terms are pure Doug conjectural heuristics to help you understand).

Quantum~energy increases with flux rate, so, overly simplified, a Planck rate quantum is a highest energy packet, but we can have ensembles of those in unlimited amounts to provide unlimited energy. A single Planck rate quantum may be thought of as a 'quantum torpedo.' Our analogue here is 'photon torpedo' in Star Trek. A visible light photon torpedo is over 20 orders of magnitude lower energy than a Planck rate quantum torpedo.

All of this unlimited Planck energy and its harmonics and subharmonics are transformable and mutable. That is how quantum~evolutionary reality creates and discreates itself in Doug's Generation III Reality Loop.

Planck's clock immutability

Classicists assume that reality is a concrete immutable and objective monism.

This is pure and simple garbage, hylic stupidity.

Classicists are retarded, massively retarded. Pun intended. Witness "zero momentum."

Classicists all have "zero momentum." Ultimate ubiquitous stuckness.

It's a 'scientific' edict of 'stux sux forever.' Immutability forever.

Classical 'science' is dead and it isn't going anywhere. Witness Global Warming.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse
See Doug's QELR of change. absolute change absolute state

See Doug's QELR of state.

See Doug's very recent CeodE 2011 What Is Wrong with Classical State? Doug - 9Jan2011.

Quanta can select. Quanta do select. Individual quanta make choices. Ensemble quanta make choices.

Quantum~selection depends upon a quantum~stage's qua to complementaroceive quantum~reality.

Quantum minds AKA Quantum Stages add Value through complementaroception of reality.

If we look at a dictionary 'definition' of classical abstraction we see almost immediately, "abstraction apart from perception." See how classical abstraction is wholly antithetical Doug's quantum~stage qua of complementaroception? If you do n¤t see, Doug offers "abstract apart perception" as an classical linguistic exemplar of SOM's Wall. Quantum~reality, via middle~inclusion has n¤ walls! Holographic islandicity yæs, classical walls n¤. Doug - 21,24Dec2010.

A coherent class of fermionic selection is gravity. Here we see isocoherence and coherence mediating decoherent self~other mass ('material' flux) attraction.

Double and multiple slit experiments demonstrate photonic and atomic (bosonic and fermionic) complementation~mode selection of apparent unity vis-à-vis plurality of 'paths.'

See Wheeler's delayed choice photon experiment.

quantum~consciousness mechanical mind

Classical objects are dumb. Classical objects cannot make choices.

Classical minds are canonically, mechanically, and dogmatically (polemically) objective.

Classical minds, especially social monists, use classical abstraction to remove [Vv]alue via Ockhamistic minimalism. Following Pirsig, Doug calls this "objective reification of Quality," i.e., turning quantons(DQ,SQ) into classical ESQ. Doug - 21Dec2010.

See Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Newton, and Einstein. All mechanical retards.

quantum~uncertainty AKA "indetermination" determinism

See Doug's QELR of 'determine.' Read segment just below TBD legacy.

Doug - 9Jan2011.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse

All quantum~flux issi ephemerally aware of all other quantum~flux.

Consider quantum~entanglement and quantum~interference borne of it.

Two lights making darkness via quantum~cancellation is a great exemplar of ephemeral quantum awareness.

Torque cancellation of fans in a jet engine and props on multi-engine aircraft are good examplars of quantum awareness too.

Imagine torque-canceling gyros, chain saws, and hocky pucks. Could you ride a torque-canceled bicycle?

What would happen to Earth's orbit if Earth's torque were canceled?

quantum~awareness mechanical thought

Classical objects are immutable and dumb.

Classical objects cannot entangle nor interfere one another except by mechanical 'interactions.'

Classical objects cannot think, they cannot even thingk.

Classical subjects can think, but they have to be carefully trained to only thingk objectively. Non objective thinking is forbidden.

See Doug's omniscription of quantum~affectation.

Quantum~reality asks us to stand at nowings and looking forward make individual choices regarding whatings happenings nextings.

Quantum-reality educes individual freedom of choice and desnouers classical cause-effect as mental "zero momentum" retardation.

a priori a posteriori

See Doug's description of classical-effectation borne of classical cause.

Classical reality asks us to look backwards at a unit OSFA history and deduce and induce effects from historical causes. Classicists refer this "normality." Normality's effects on classical minds is formal objective putation as 'rules.'

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse

Allow Doug to quote Peirce directly, "But there is no kind of inference which can lend the slightest probability to any such absolute denial of an unusual phenomenon." See p. 56, Philosophical Writings of Peirce, selected and edited by Justice Buchler, Dover, 1955 from orig. 1940 edition.

Peirce broaches at least two quantum~memes:

  • Undeniability of macroscopic quantum~uncertainty, and
  • Bergson's prescient, "negation is subjective."

So, now, it becomes even more obvious that classical dialectic is naught more than a passé and worn out anachronism.

Doug could add a third quantum~meme of a trichotomous codon of probability, plausibility, and likelihood attending its quantum~complementary trichotomous codon of pastings, nowings, futurings. In script, quanton(PPL,PNF).

See Chapter II [Ibid.] for Peirce's detail comparisons of induction, deduction, and abduction.

To distill Peirce's hermeneutics of abduction, paraphrased by Doug, "...preference of hypothetical choice based on uncertainty [a guess]." Simply, guessing is all we have, essentially. See page 151 [ibid.].

On page 304 [ibid.] Peirce describes abductivism's quantum~middle~inclusion as absence of any sharp analytical 'context.' This jibes Doug's omniscriptions (partially borrowed from Finkelstein of Georgia Tech) of quantum~comtextual islandicity elsewhere in this Segment 11, Chapter 2 effort.

Peircean abduction deduction-induction

As Peirce explains so well, classical notions of induction and deduction claim powers of factual legitimacy, certainty, exactness, and determinism all of which are now quantum~evidently bogus. See pp. 151-156 of Chapter II [ibid.].

Doug - 20Dec2010.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse
affectation effect[u]ation
complementation formal opposition

Quantum~coherence tolerates enormous ensembles of widely varying islandic autonomies. We call it, "Many Sizes Fit All," MSFA.

From Doug's quantum~complementarospectives, this is quintessence of A New QuPo, A N¤væl Quantum~Politics invented by Doug Renselle using Quantonic memeos. Doug - 18Dec2010.

For Doug, this root semantic emerges from his (unacknowledging) mentors including Robert M. Pirsig, Mae-wan Ho, Henri Louis Bergson, Danah Zohar, and David Bohm. Any protégé couldn't have better mentors than those...

Just FYI, this day, 18Dec2010, is 15th anniversary of Beth Burnett's first MatchLine call to Doug. We were married 3May1997 and lived quite joyously until her passing this year 26Jul2010. This is a very special day for me! Doug - 18Dec2010.

coherent~islandicity of individual choice social dogma

Classically, social dogma has to be, by TPTB consensual thing-king OSFA.

This is essence of socialists' One Global Order. It is pristinely garbage intellect, similar Gore and McCain't on 'Global Warming.'

Society nor weather are classically unit-caused, determinate-effective. Nor are they 'ideas' which can have immutable semantics and consensual semasiologies.

TPTB - From ZeroHedge™ meaning The Powers That Be.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse
equal individual opportunity equal socially-planned results

Our classical 'description' of this talking point has to illuminate classical linguistic troubles with each of those four words:

  • equal
  • social
  • plan
  • result

Technically 'classical equality' is Platonic identity. Ancient philosophers made 'identity' a founding axiom of formal geometry. 'Classical equality' is closed, ideally tautologous (closed circularity of thingking), and innately incapable of self-other evolution. 'Classical equality' 'designs out' evolution and all quantum~reality. See Doug's critique of Aristotle's 'identity.'

Static and status quo interpretations of Platonic ideality of 'equality' as geometric appear to Doug as classicists' bases for notions of 'classically social' as OSFA, cultural uniformity through cultural consensus (i.e., conned sensus), and brain wash acculturation-pogroming of society's constituents to dogmatic 'standards,' themselves based in Platonic idealities. Simply, 'classical socialism' may be well exemplified as Borg assimilation. Students may choose to ponder similarities of radically socialized 'christian' (especially Roman Çatholiç) fascism (including most Protestantism) with Hitlerean-Mussoliniesque flavors of nationalism.

Classical semantic for plan is expectational 'determination of results.' This is essentially why all classical plans always fail, ultimately. To grasp quintessence here we must understand that reality is quantum and quantum~reality is radically wave~stochastic and thus (specific plan detail-event-) indeterminate, so all static classical planning is always doomed to failure (in any sense of ideally achieving said plan) which is what we observe happening to Keynesian fractional reserve fiat banking as we write and read. All classical planning may be viewed then as corrupt in any sense of inevitability of fraudulent results...

(...which planners dyslexically claim "unintended consequences which couldn't have been foreseen," and which manifests as a post facto admission of their a priori inability to plan: credit due here to Max Keiser's 21Dec2010 JP Morgue E105 report).

Indeed, from any quantum~philosophical complementarospective, HotMeme™ "...all classical planning is corrupt." HotMeme™. Doug - 22Dec2010.

Readers should now be able to see that classical notions of expectational 'result' borne of classically-socially-determinate 'plan,' is itself a notion of intentional corruption. Here Doug echoes deliberately, and with some Doug malice against classical socialism, Friedrich A. Hayek's views in his Road to Serfdom.

Doug - 22-24Dec2010.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse

Readers may find this talking point quite challenging. Why? Doug re engineers a mostly ingrained psychological linguistic semasiology for a classical dialectical notion of 'projection.'

Freud, to some extent Jung, and Sartre use 'projection' as symptomatic of a human 'mental illness' defence mechanism for moving (projecting) psychological pain onto 'external' entities. All three brands of their psychologies are profoundly dialectical and thus self-disabled. Simply, their psychologies tend to use distorted thingking (dialectic) to remove distorted thoughts (those projected) from mentally disturbed patients.

Doug sees this as dialectically 'deranged psychiatrists' rearranging their deranged patients' dialectically-assessed deranged perceptions.

That kind of 'projection' is n¤t what Doug describes n¤r intends here.

Let's begin then by QELRing from classical 'projection' to quantum pr¤jæction.

Doug made a long list of assumptions at top of this segment. He needs to add a few more, including his assumption that since we are ihn nature and nature is ihn us, we may infer that we are ihn agency of nature and nature is ihn agency of us. One powerful implication of that: as nature creates, so too, yet to a lessor extent, humans create. Human creation, human creative qua is what Doug means by this quantum comparative's title: "quantum~evolutionary pr¤jæction of potentia."

Humans have powers to thinkq about what is unsaid. From unlimited unsaids they may choose some which to them are better and proceed with turning them into saids. Quantum~transformation (quantum~evolutionary~emerscence) from unsaids to saids is what Doug means by quantum~pr¤jæction.

In script, quantum~pr¤jæction issi quanton(unsaid,said). Those of us who thinkq can imagine, can role play on our quantum~stages our quanton's imagined unsaids evolving into selected actual saids.

It is a kind of mental prototyping (please carefully and thoroughly read Doug's review of Gary Taubes' Darwin's Chip) AKA quantum~holographic~pr¤jæction. In rare instances it is capable of creating novelty. More often we can routinely use it to incrementally evolve unsaids into existing saids.

We can fathom novel financial, economic, and political unsaids and create saids to replace current failing dialectical methods and models like Keynesianism. We see directly here "pr¤jæction of potentia."

Doug's reference for psychological comparisons above is Nothing I See Means Anything by David Parrish, MD, 2006, Sentient Publications. I thank Steven, my surrogate son, whom I inherited from Beth, for his seasonal gift to me of this marvelous text. It has a lot of dialectical content, but it balances with more quantum memes which are exceptional. I wish I had time to do a full review of this text for you. However, you can read it...right?

Doug - 28Dec2010.

quantum~evolutionary projection of potentia social status quo as intentional repetition of history

Classical socialists simply rearrange existing saids and call their 'standard reusable parts' formal and objective production "new."

"Status quo is the way to go."

Some call it "manufacturing innovation."

See Doug's coinings of emerscenture and emerscitecture.

Doug - 28Dec2010.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse

Quantum~gn¤stics view individual hyper classical-society. Quantumists pneumatically perceive this new way of thinkqing as byproduce of "finding their individual inner." [Doug will write A How to Find Your Inner primer during last few days of December, 2010.]

Where classical socialists emphasize 'stability via social consensus,' quantum~gnostics emphasize survivability through competitive individualism. When all individuals are competitive, regarding each individual's survival, said ensemble of individuals quantumly accrues gross survivability. This is what Mae-wan Ho implied by her quantum~coherence of quantum~autonomies in her fine text, the Rainbow and the Worm.

Survivability requires quantum~biological apoptosis of old and emergent replacement of it with new. Which old gets replaced by which new, as natural selection, is only possible via individual competitive evolution of local quanta, all of which are individuals. That coherent ensemble of individuals is what Doug and others mean by "Quantum Society."

Quantum society omniffers classical society in many ways, but a key one is another Danah Zohar meme: Quantum~society and quantum~individuals are inseparable memetically. That is, quantum~society issi ihn quantum~individuals and quantum~individuals aræ ihn quantum~society. This obviously is quantum~coherence of quantum~middle~inclusion of quantum~islandic individuals as quantum~autonomies.

This quantum~talking~point benudes essence of, quintessence of QuPo, A N¤væl Quantum~Politics.

Doug - 26Dec2010.

quantum~evolutionary individual competition social planning for status quo

Classical-socialists self-deludedly view society hyper individual. This 'level' of thing-king is automatic to and in Keynesians.

Their notions of Total Quality Control reflect what Doug refers "classical socialist trickle down." They plan for composite-unified social benefits and believe those benefits will trickle down in common sense regularity, uniformity, and neutrality to individuals in a OSFA manner. This is what they intend when they say, "Replace equal individual opportunity with socially-planned equal results." For socialist believers this is their utopian holism. Keynesians behave (do their due) entirely based upon this core axiom of Harvard Marxist anti Hayekean anti von Mises thought.

This social hyper individual methodology communizes individuals as 'stable' social cogs in their TQCed utopia.

To Doug, this is socialism turning individual Value into social value. Social 'value' is status quo, period. Socialists plan for status quo. Status quo to them is stable and OSFA which explains their even more deluded desire for its globality: One World Order.

This whole method is OK if all of us believe in an immutable state of independent classically socialized 'subjects' as reified and separable classical objects.

"Doug why isn't classical-socialist method OK?" See CTMs.

Nature neither believes in nor practices separable 'static independence,' AKA 'non evolutionary strict deterministic state.'

Outcome of this stupid socialism is evident from a quantum perspective, as Danah Zohar wrote, "An individual ...a natural self--a free and responsive self--and its world, ultimately, will reflect the world of Nature. When it does not, that world will fail."

Doug - 26Dec2010

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse
competitive production of gross goods and services product socially-planned reduction via fractional reserve banking based in fiat money
Value hyper value value hyper Value
fiscal-financial Value preservation via real money exchanges marginalizing fiat debt fiscal-financial value debasement via fiat money exchanges and debt

For Doug, this is quantum~simple. Fiat is only abstract symbolism.

To any self-proclaimed Keynesian, GDP is flow of fiat symbols.

Is it evident that fiat as only symbolic of value literally has "zero value?"

Today's digital computers can move fiat symbols around Earth in nanoseconds. Keynesians measure this movement of symbols and call it "GDP."

Please compare movement of symbols vav movement of real money, e.g., metals. No one can move metal in nanoseconds in Keynesians' classical world.

When Keynesians symbolize real money with valueless symbols, and then fractionally reserve real money at ratios of 100:1, 200:1, 300:1, etc. it becomes manifestly apparent how they debase real money symbolically. This is plain and simple fraud.

"How is it fraud Doug?"

It is fraud since when we all go to get our real value isn't there for about 99.5% of us. Our world's banking cartel are corrupt thieves. They cannot deliver our metals to us when even 1% of us ask for delivery. Doug is assuming a greater than 100:1 fractional reserve ratio on metals.

Is real money virtual? Can we fractionally reserve it? Should we? Doug says "N¤!" Keynesians say, "Yes!" With whom do you agree?

What will you do when you go to withdraw your 'certified' real money and it isn't there and banksters offer you paper and a premium fiat fee in place of your hard won real money?

In Doug's view we must de virtualize real money and force a certified 1:1 reserve on all of it. Those who want to play with fiat must live in a world of debased lower value they have created for themselves. Doug wants naught to do with their Keynesian fraud.

If you have real money, banksters cannot defraud you! Why do you think they do not want you to physically hold real money? When you hold real money, fiat dies. As evidence, watch JPMorgan die as silver's price goes toward $1000 per troy ounce.

Rising metal prices are metrics of cartel fraud. That is why cartel members have spent last 30+ years attempting to control metal prices in global metal exchanges. Of course, that control itself is a criminal act. More cartel fraud...

Fiat as OSFA doesn't! Fiat's imminent failure is SEP that Doug's views are better.

Doug - 23Dec2010.

Worse Better Talking Point
Quantum Comparatives vis-à-vis Classical Comparatives  Talking Point
 Better  Worse
©Quantonics, Inc., 2010-2030

To be continued...

16-18,20-26,28-29Dec2010 - 1,9Jan2011


Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 10 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

A Plateau's Talking Points: Financial-Economic-Political [FEP] Poisson~Bracketings

At critical junctures of Doug's ever~evolving opus, it becomes evident that we
need quantum~coherence of comparative quantum~memes and passé classical notions.

Doug has started a list. It has holes and possibly gaps. We will fill these as they become apparent through evolutionary application.

Doug has grouped several of his Feuilleton Chautauqua on Economic [Vv]alue
quantum and classical appellatives as comparative talking points.
His intent is to offer diligent readers a fairly concise list of PB comparatives which can be
readily assessed "better-worse" as "enablers-disablers" in choosing better FEP alternatives for Earth humanity.

First, allow Doug to just show a candidate list for your consideration. Doug groups
them, as he has omniscussed them, in two (very roughly) hierarchical columns.

©Quantonics, Inc., 2010-2030

Quantum Comparatives


Classical Comparatives
pluralisms of monisms monism
Planck's clock immutability
absolute change absolute state
quantum~consciousness mechanical mind
quantum~uncertainty AKA "indetermination" determinism
quantum~awareness mechanical thought
a priori (abduction as pragmatically looking futurings, seeing your omnitemporal 12s) a posteriori (deduction-induction as looking past, seeing your monotemporal 6)
Peircean abduction deduction-induction
affectation effect[u]ation
complementation formal opposition
coherent~islandicity of individual choice social dogma
equal individual opportunity equal socially-planned results
quantum~evolutionary projection of potentia social status quo as intentional repetition of history (AKA "rinse and repeat")
quantum~evolutionary individual competition social planning for status quo
competitive production of gross goods and services product socially-planned reduction via fractional reserve banking based in fiat money
Value hyper value value hyper Value
fiscal-financial Value preservation via real money exchanges marginalizing fiat debt fiscal-financial value debasement via fiat money exchanges and debt

Quantum Comparatives


Classical Comparatives

©Quantonics, Inc., 2010-2030

If you are so inclined, please comsider those comparatives in Quantum~Lightings™ of this Feuilleton Chautauqua's progress thus far.

Next segments, finishing this Chapter 2, will expand above list, offer detail omniscriptions and relevant links
of each comparative, and evolve a PB(quanton(better,worse),quanton(enablers,disablers)).

To be continued...

Doug will use this segment and its table to maintain said comparatives.
Of course that will editorially impact subsequent segments in Chapter 2.



Chapter Two Index

12Dec2010 and 10Feb2011

Chapter 2, Segment 9 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Classical Reduction vis-à-vis Quantum Production

I need to remind you that often it appears that Doug is issuing classical normatives. For example, "Classical reduction is state-ic."
Readers must realize Doug's multi-level quantum~topos of classical-interpretations vis-à-vis quantum~hermeneutics.
Classically is is a normative identity assignment linguism. Such problematic language exposes classical putation explicitly.
In its place Doug parleys issi as a n¤n normative quantonic interrelationshiping. Graphically Doug shows its symbol like this:

If Doug shows 'is,' in single quotes, he intends its pure classical putation.
Otherwise he may be writing classical text in which case its pure classical context begs your intuition of 'is.'
However, sometimes Doug writes classical and quantum semantics together.
In that case his intent may be ambiguous...but that harms you not.
You should be capable of reading it toposically both ways to your individual hermeneutic advantage.

Given that...

Classical reduction is state-ic. It depends upon Ockhamistic minimalism.
Reduction via minima has another name: analysis AKA 'cutting up.'
To classicists state-ic minima represent 'real knowledge.'
Worse, they want all of those minima to be objective, independent, and even further reducible without limit.
To any classical thingker, that describes 'value.' So genuine classical 'value' is static, objective minimalism.

How do you think J. C. Maxwell invented his second 'law' of thermodynamics? Minimalist, reductive, 'rational,' thingking.

Over last several months you have read Doug's words describing this as classical "dead thingking."
It is dead due its static reduction and its denial of evolution.
Classicists call this 'value.' Ditto Marxists, Keynesians, and all classical socialists.

Classicists take real Value and use reduction and other classical thingking methods (CTMs),
e.g., 'planning,' and Minskyan worship of 'stability,' to 'create' static 'value.'

Bottom line: Classicists kill Value by turning it into 'value.' Reduction is only one of their means.

Pirsig describes this simply and beautifully as turning DQ cowithin SQ into ESQ by removing DQ from SQ.
It is a metaphor of killing: turning life into death. It is quintessence of dialectic, and
why Heraclitus refers dialectic as "war" and Essene Jesus calls dialectic Error.

Both of those consummate gn¤stics refer classicists as being incapable of
"finding their inner," and thus being incapable of "understanding 'the logos.'"

Classicists reify Value as 'value.'

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum production is absolute change manifesting quantum~evolution." Quantonics HotMeme

Do you recall Doug's remarks regarding said and unsaid and their quantum~complementarity as "unlimited potentia?"
Indeed, "unlimited quantum~evolutionary production potential."

Doug shows that in this quantonics script:


Indeed Doug can script quantum~production using that script.

quantum~production issi quanton(said,unsaid)

Doug's quanton(said,unsaid) is hermeneutically Peircean abductive on a priori potential via quantum~imaginationings.

Quantumists evolve saidValuings into their unsaidValuings potentia.

You might try imagining that bold green phasementing as a dynamic quantum~production loop...

Doug could spend entire balance of this iteration of his lifings on this,
but you may garner essence itself in its current brevity.

To be continued...

Readers please note that Peirce's abductive logic is an quasi classical admission of real "quantum~uncertainty."
Peirce's abductive thinking says, as Doug does, "we sometimes have to admit that guessing is our only alternative."
See Doug on Kuhn's partial puzzle.

Quantonics HotMeme™ "Abduction is quantum~imaginationings of unsaids' potentia reaching into possible futurings." Quantonics HotMeme

12Dec2010 and 10Feb2011


Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 8 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

H5W is Competition hyper Planning?

If you were able to wade through Doug's Segment 7 tedium, you may have arrived
at a Hayekean bottom line: quantum~opportunity issi hyper classical result.

Doug's tedium was about explaining why (H5W) we arrive at that bottom line. We surmise:

Quantum~linguistics are hyper classical-linguistics.

Quantum~thinkqing issi hyper classical-thingking.

Quantum~empiritheory issi hyper classical-rationalism. Doug - 23Dec2011.

Quantum~Value issi hyper classical-value.

Quantum~mixentropy issi hyper classical-posentropy.

Quantum~complementarity issi hyper classical-dialectic.

Quantum~evolution issi hyper classical-state.

Quantons are hyper dichons.

And so on...

Now is it clear to you that quantum~evolution issi quantum~competitive and classical-'state' cann¤t be quantum~competitive?

From our last segment:
Is it clear to you that quantum~evolution issi quantum~opportunistic and classical-state cann¤t be quantum~opportunistic?

Is it clear to you that classical-planning is state-ic?

Is it clear to you that quantum~planning issi quantum~evolutionary?

Is it clear to you that classical 'state' cann¤t evolve?

Is it clear to you that quantum~competition issi quantum~evolutionary?

Classical anything is status quo!

Quantum reality issi absolute change and quantum~evolution borne of it.

Quantum~evolutionary~competition issi hyper classical-static-planning.

HotMeme™ "Classical 'state' reduces value." HotMeme™.

HotMeme™ "Quantum~evolution increases Value." HotMeme™.

Those are two of the most powerful political and economic comparative referenda on Earth CeodE 2010.

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 7 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

H5W is Opportunity hyper Result?

This text is more tedious than previous segments. Please exercise some caution, care, and due diligence.

Please obtain Doug's uses of 'New' below as "quantum~n¤væl." See Doug's QELR of new.

Recall how Doug has written there are many aspects of quantum complementarity.
Doug bundles most of them in a simple quantonics script we can show here:


Doug's comma~nospace is a way of bundling real quantum~complementarity (and all its quantum~ephemeral various aspects),
and its New Ways of Thinkqing Meme which we refer "Quantonic Interrelationshipings." Let's review, briefly:


If you go to that link, you can read about what Doug means by "quantonic interrelationshipings."

All quantonic~interrelationshipings are quantum~complementary. One aspect is a meme of
everywhere~included~middlings~associativity (EIMA). That is what quantum~wavings do!

By antithesis, classicists thingk using dichons, i.e.,

dichon(opportunity, result).

Comma-space represents SOM's Wall, where SOM's Knife dialectically cuts-up (analyses) all reality objectively.
(Quantum~reality issi n¤n classically-analytic. We have n¤ viable means of reifying
quantum~reality, since it evolves perpetually and thus is unstoppable for analysis.)

All dichonic-relations (interactions) are classically lisr. One aspect is a notion of
everywhere-excluded-middle-dissociation (EEMD). That is what classical-objects do!

Once, as a student of Quantonics, you inure omnifferencings among dichons and quantons,
it becomes much easier to hermeneut features of Quantonics' New Ways of Thinkqing.

Now, very simply, classicists interpret (actually putate, Doug's verb emerqancy of classical putation)
opportunity as an objective notion. Similarly they interpret result as an objective-notion.
Technically and linguistically we call this, "classical, formal, material reification."
Accordingly Henri Louis Bergson refers this one of classicism's greatest illusions-self-delusions.

Again, simply, quantumists hermeneut opportunity as a quantum~meme. Too, they hermeneut result as a quantum~meme.

To omnistinguish classical language and its quantum hermeneutics allow Doug
to QELR opportunity as ¤pp¤rtuhnihty, and result as ræsult.

Given that, classical 'opportunity' and 'result' are monistic, objective, analytic,
quantitative, causal, either-or, certain, state-ic, etc.

By comparison, quantum ¤pp¤rtuhnihty and ræsult are pluralistic (ensembles of flux),
subjective, holographic, qualitative, indeterminate (see Paul Pietsch's "...indetermination is a principal
feature of intelligence..."), both~all~while~and~many (BAWAM), stochastically uncertain, stindyanic, etc.

When we take something objective and evolve it into a quanton we literally add Value.
This is what hyper assesses: ¤pp¤rtuhnihty hyper opportunity. Ditto ræsult hyper result.

But our segment title as a query is, 'H5W is opportunity hyper result?'

Already, we have two easy but only partial answers:

¤pp¤rtuhnihty issi hyper opportunity, and

¤pp¤rtuhnihty issi hyper result.

Are there any other easy answers given this segment's tutelage?

We can also directly assess:

ræsult hyper result (already given), and

ræsult hyper opportunity (a n¤væl hermeneutic).

Now let's add two more quantum~complementarity aspects to our hyper comparisons:

1. plurality, and

2. animacy (up to Planck rate).

Doug will show them incrementally:

ræsult, ræsults, amd ræsultings, thence

¤pp¤rtuhnihty, ¤pp¤rtuhnihties, amd ¤pp¤rtuhnihtyings.

It may be apparent to you that Value grows as we add more (of countless more possible)
quantum~complementarity aspects' linguistics. Let's show their hypers:

ræsultings hyper ræsults hyper ræsult hyper result, and

¤pp¤rtuhnihtyings hyper ¤pp¤rtuhnihties hyper ¤pp¤rtuhnihty hyper opportunity.

You may see how Value potentia explode when we add quantum~complementarity aspects to our languages.

Compare quanton(unsaihdings,saihd) to dichon(said, said).

Ræcall this segment's title? What about H5W: how, why, what, who, where, when.

Does our quæry have more Value when we show all of H5W's hypers? Let's maximally QELR this segment's new title:

H¤wings, whyings, whatings, wh¤ings, whereings, whænings issi ¤pp¤rtuhnihty hyper result?

OK, though, when is opportunity really hyper result, even classically?

When results are planned classically, state-ically. Why? Classical planning denies evolution.
Relatively state-ic planning produces results hypo any kind of evolutionary quantum~resultings.

That is why all good developers, even now, use evolutionary product
prototyping instead of a classical (non competitive which implies socialist-planned) rainfall approach CeodE 2010.

Keynesian-Marxist socialist plans use 'no' prototyping and ignore evolution.
Their 'value' is Ockhamistically minimized. It's all ad hoc BS!

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 6 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Applying Quantum~Complementarity to Hayek

Recall that in Chapter 1 Doug ended with strong hints of quantum~complementarity
twixt hyperinflation and Doug's novel coining of its quantum~complement hypoinflation.

Notice how Doug used hyper (classically: above-over-outside) and hypo (classically: below-under-inside) innately.
Usually Doug will talk about selected semantics and their hermeneutics as having more Value (hyper) and less value (hypo).
Can you see how his uses of hyperinflation and hypoinflation are more direct descriptions of complementarity of
omniffering 'flations' than of their con(m)textually sensitive quantum~relative [Vv]alue interrelationshipings?

Segment 6 - 13Nov2011 Aside:

"Hey Doug, Are both Value and value complementary? Both hyper and hypo? Please explain."

Recall in Segment 3 Doug wrote, "...up is in down and down is in up.
Even when we look at classical monism as a continuous linear wave...up issi ihn down and down issi ihn up..."

By autsimilarity Doug can write again,
"both...Value is in value and value is in Value...and...Value issi ihn value and value issi ihn Value...,"
(try substituting nissin for "issi ihn")
"both...hyper is in hypo and hypo is in hyper...and...hyper issi ihn hypo and hypo issi ihn hyper..."

We sææ both quanton(Value,value) and quanton(hyper,hypo) in all their self~evident quantum~complementarity.

Where Keynesian classicists always 'see' objective-everywhere EOOO 'either-or dissociativity,'
quantum~gnostics complementaroceive ubiquitous and perpetual EIMA both~andings associativityings.

Which do you wish to be(come)? A Keynesian DIQhead? A quantum~Gnostic QIChead?

Which are you, a classical lisr-commutative matrix? A quantum Avatar~hologram?

Are you stux? Are you flux?


End Segment 6 - 13Nov2011 Aside.

Quantum~complementarity involves many kinds of quantum~relative interrelationshipings, including hierarchy,
plurality, middle~inclusion, associativity, coherence, entropy, entanglement, interference, rates of change, and so on...

Doug assumes you can see that. Here, Doug's attention predominately glues quantum~complementation
memes of hierarchy and singularity vis-à-vis plurality, with hints of change as present participle.

So we can say, then and quantumly, in some comtexts (i.e., quantum~contexts) inflation
may be hyper (hierarchically above) deflation, yet in other comtexts deflation may be hyper (hierarchically above) inflation.

This polymorphism of comtextual semantics and [Vv]alue is why ancients refer this kind of thinkqing "sophistry."
Banesh Hoffman called it "perversity," and "equivocation." To classical dialectical minds quantum means perverse.
Classical dialectic's pure objectivity shows results of ancients' attempts to drive
all sophistry out, and our result is classical thingking drives all Value out.
Those sentences describe what Doug intends by "classicism is a con job."

"Can you show us how and why, Doug?" Yes!

What do Keynesian Marxist socialists say about equality?
They say we must "drive out equality of opportunity in favor of equality of results."
Hayek warned us about this in his Road to Serfdom.
It means Keynesians want to drive out competition in favor of 'planning.'
Hayek's point here is that 'central planning' is socialism's base principle,
and 'central planning' begs 'totalitarian rule.' Essentially 'elite dictatorship and global control.'
Hayek describes a kind of Total Quality Control system on all Earth humanity and their behaviours and cultures.
We can see now that TQC is part of socialists' war games against humanity: a social çatholiçism of world cultural mediocrity.
How can socialists preach 'cultural diversity,' while dogmatizing 'ethical' and 'moral' monism? OSFA in OGC.
Doesn't cultural di(omni)versity beg ethical and moral di(omni)versity?
They want a single decision mechanism for global control!
Too, they demand its mechanically 'ethical' dialectical bivalence.
But reality isn't dialectical, which Quantonics explains in spades.
So socialists are pushing on a rope which they have been using to "rope and intellectually rape dopes."
And we see their massive failures' imminence nowings. Doug - 29Nov2010.

If this boggles your noodle, keep in mind two very important memes:
"Monism is deceit," and "Principle rules something not itself."

Doug claims we can thinkq about this a new way, using hyper and hypo
quantum~relativity of Quantonic~interrelationshipings. Let's try it and see what happens.

We are omniscussing (compare classical 'di'scuss) some very basic memes (quantum) and notions (classical) here.
For simple "vis-à-vis comparison" (as quantum~omniscriptionings): means and ends vis-à-vis opportunity and result.
(Fathom how classicists, notionally, would write "...means or ends vis-à-vis opportunity or results.")

Now let's bring more of Hayek into our quantum~stagings' holographic viewings.

Compare opportunity vis-à-vis results and competition vis-à-vis planning. That is just what Hayek did!

Do you see quantum~opportunity emerging here? What is emerging? Opportunity for us to apply
one of Quantonics' wMBU™ tools to our set of vavs. "Which one Doug?" Linguistic Poisson~Bracketings!
(Here is a Doug PBing exemplar on 'science vis-à-vis religion.')

Allow Doug to defer use of his PBings tool for now and take a frontal approach simply
comtextually comparing "opportunity and result," then "competition and planning."

Simply, let's answer these questions:
 1. H5W is opportunity hyper result?
 2. H5W is competition hyper planning?

Notice our use of singular in opportunity, result, competition, and planning.
That begs classical dialectical naïve and local thingking.
Do you find it interesting that classicists use present participle on 'plan' and avoid it in their usages of opportunity, result, and competition?
Why didn't they use 'resulting, even resultings?' It would be too noticeable as 'apparently bad 'classical' grammar.'
You may choose to see that we have a multitude of grammatical, semantic, and hermeneutic issues here.

Allow Doug to use all singulars, no participles, and no plurals in his brief opus here.
Opportunity vis-à-vis result. Competition vis-à-vis plan. Opportunity hyper result? Competition hyper plan?

At this juncture we bump into one of humanities' largest conundrums: in general, "Is reality classically certain?"
To say that another way, "Is reality quantumly~uncertain?"

"Doug, why are those two queries asking about one of humanities' largest conundrums?"

Classicists assume, in general, reality is y=f(t) determinate. Recall Gore. Observe 'the Bernank.'
Observe Nobama. Observe total failure of Keynesian economic 'theory.'
Observe European Union. Observe 'United' States of America. Observe Total Quality Control.
Observe all (classical, monistic, dialectical) social systems. Observe totalitarianism.
Observe 'c a t h o l i c i s m,' AKA The Universal Church.
All of these and countless more are disintegrating, failing massively.

Recall Clifford Geertz' remarks on disassembly of unions. See Doug on 'unification.'

An offering, at this juncture, of a Bergson quotation provides a superb answer to our query:

Is reality quantumly~uncertain?

Similar Dana Zohar, Bergson writes, "It is quite evident that a species would disappear,
should it fail to bend to the conditions of existence which are imposed on it
From Bergson's Creative Evolution, Topic 19 'Adaptation and Progress,' page 101.

You may wish to revisit a similar quote from Dana Zohar.

Doug offers this quote as an exemplar of his Observation just above re:
"Observe total failure of Keynesian economic 'theory.'"
Here Doug metaphorically views Keynesian economic theory as a species.

Keynes' as practiced status quo is antithetical Bergson's "Adaptation and Progress."
Why? Economic hegemony and control of what should be free markets which, when free, do adapt and progress.

Permit Doug to spread this effort out: we'll do query 1. H5W is opportunity hyper result? in Segment 7.
We'll do query 2. H5W is competition hyper planning? in Segment 8.

Keep reminding yourself that hierarchy (in this case, hyper) is only one kind of quantum~complementarity.
To make it even easier for you, make this next meme an extremely persistent energy~welling on your quantum~stage:
Doug's comma~n¤space in quanton(complementb,complementa) is Quantonics' script for quantum~complementarity.

Doug uses hand gestures to show quantum~complementarity too. Extended and enmeshed fingers represent comma~n¤space.

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 5 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Is Planning for Stability Viable?

Our simple answer, with a simple qualification, is "If reality is macroscopically quantum~uncertain due natural evolution, 'No!'"

Doug believes and is co(m)nfident that reality is macroscopically quantum~uncertain. SEP is simple empirical direct experience.

Classical notions of 'state' deny macroscopic quantum~uncertainty.

Marxists are dialectical objectivists whose state-ic delusions depend upon stability of 'state.'

Many Keynesians share that Marxist delusion.

Why are 'the Bernank's' methods avalanche-failing exponentially now? He believes in 'state.'

However, state is dead. Evolution is alive and living.

When we believe in 'state,' we commit ourselves to self-extinction. Gnostics call this, "Error."

It has taken 100 years (since about 1913), but 'the Bernank's' Marxist Keynesian 'state' is now committing systemic suicide, evidence of its own deadness.

'The Bernank,' now, like that dumbass Gore, is a laughing stock as perceived by all 'fiscally aware' humanity.
Every time he speaks, we giggle. Every time he acts, we giggle.
Incompetence declares itself intrinsically. Our best most recent exemplar is Nobama. His support of 'the Bernank' is legend.

In quantum~reality all planning must find its theoretical bases in omnitoring waves of absolute change.
Any planning which depends upon reality 'not' changing is invalid.

Adherents of classical objective planning are deluded to believe they can 'arbitrarily predict any future state.'
It is called "strict determinism." It is garbage intellect. It is bogus.

Quantum~reality evolves and exhibits absolute change. Therefore ideal state-ic predication is impracticable.

A great exemplar is weather. We can (apparently) 'predict' weather for only a day or so and
with each passing day weather itself omniverges from our original predictions. Read James Gleick's Chaos.
Al Gore exposed his major dumbassicity when he agreed, for his own political advantage,
with 'scientists' who claimed they could 'predict' a specific temperature 100 years in Earth's future.
In Doug's view, 'scientists' of that level of incompetence should be detenured and fired.

Doug's analogy here is that those 'scientists' and Keynesian 'economists' thingk
almost 'identically' (due inept classical academic 'education') as objective determinists.

'The Bernank's' imminent failure resonates Gore's total embarrassment.

So called 'liberal socialism's' support and enfranchisement of morons like these send a strong message about incompetence of socialism itself.

Any planning we do has to find its bases in ways and means of omnitoring ensemble evolving wave patterns of Value.
(We should use "...omnitorings ensemblings evolving wavings patternings of Value" here.)

Anyone who understands quantum~reality can apprise you of how (and H5W)
to do that and what humankind's current limitations are in attempting to do so.

Currently, one word sums it up quite nicely, "stochastics." Our qualification here is "dynamic stochastics."

Our major limitation, and this one appears intrinsic to Doug, "Our stochastic planning-viability horizon
will always be short relative to rates of changings in ensemblings (i.e., quantum~gradiencings) being omnitored."
("Quantum~gradiencings" and link to 'gradient' QELR added 28May2011 - Doug.)

It may be evident that quantum~computing will be mandatory to embrace so much flux~uncertainty with ease and currency.

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 4 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Is Stable Survivability an Oxymoron?

Doug imagines some of you pulling your hair out at this juncture. I would be surprised if you weren't.
If you read Segment 3 and didn't say to self, "Self, is Doug pulling my leg?"
then in Doug's view you still have some Quantonics due diligence ahead...

What Doug just wrote doesn't make clear a need for us to develop individual qua
to thinkq n¤t only animately, but also multicomtextually. (and other ways too)

Classically "stable survivability," isn't oxymoronic since
classicists view 'survival' as 'state,' a social pattern of 'static value.'

But if we convince classicists that survivability is actually an evolutionary
process, suddenly, 'stable survivability' moves into their realm of oxymoronicity.
To any classicist stability and change are 'opposite.' When classicists attempt to
unify (cohere, coinside) 'opposites' their funda mental reasoning breaks down.

Quantumly, "stable survivability," is only an oxymoron when we treat 'stable' classically.
Why? Nothing in quantum~reality may be classically 'stable.'

Now quantum~thinkqing commences its nascent intrusion on our quantum~stages.
We realize that quantum~stable linguistically must be, itself, linguistically an agent of change.
An exemplar Doug offers here is his own 12 year-old "Truth is an agent of its own change."

Quantum~reality makes n¤ demands in a sense, for example, that all change has to be radical.
In fact, and by direct experience, most change is fairly smooth
(which fools classicists into assuming all change is 'continuous').
Then Doug's QELRed version of "stable" might appear as "stæblæ." And it might ask its
linguists to view stæblæ quantum~change as absolute but smooth and relatively orderly.
Latter is what Stenger and Prigogine mean by near equilibrium evolutionary processings.
Too, John Forbes Nash's "equilibrium" happens after an impulse of change induces a n¤væl subsequent ordered
(n¤t classically 'collapsed,' thus 'state-ic') "stability" which is still and yet and always adapting and selecting.

Clearly then to Doug's query, "Is Stable Survivability an Oxymoron?," our answer must be, "depends."

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 3 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

What Needs to be Stable?

Keynesians want to stabilize prices, unemployment, etc. To do so they use social, essentially Marxist,
pattern of value controls. All of these controls are formal, mechanical and dialectical.

As experienced we see all of these controls destroying Earth's systems of finance and business.

Allow Doug to drive directly to his bottom line:

We do n¤t need Keynesian stability since it doesn't work, actually it is proving itself a total failure.

Segment 3 - 13Nov2011 Aside:

"Hey Doug, Why doesn't Keynesian 'stability' work? Please explain."

Allow me to congratulate you. Your question is perhaps best one anyone might ask about Keynesianism.

As Friedrich Hayek has explained to us so well, a core axiom of Keynesian theory is that competitive individual
capitalism must be replaced by totalitarian (One World Order) central planning for socially-desired results.

Essence here is that a few totalitarian leaders know what is best for all people and
self appoint their duties to make that happen via central planning.

But planning, Keynesian classical-planning, demands predication of results. Quantum reality shows us that is impossible.
Keynesians do not grasp essence of quantum~reality! All we have to do is realize that quantum~reality is a wave~based reality.
Once we do that, we can simply observe waves. When we do that what do we see? Up is in down and down is in up.
Even when we look at classical monism as a continuous linear wave...up issi ihn down and down issi ihn up:

Even that classical dialectical monism shows us by inspection that change is absolute, and stability isn't!

We see ad occulos quanton(up,down) in all its self~evident quantum~complementarity.

When Keynesians empirically omniscover how their plans never bear fruit of "socially desired results,"
as planned, they attempt to 'force' those results by any means available.

That Keynesian 'forcing' generates chaos which even further perturbs their
plans and (Keynesian "unforeseeable") absence of expected results.
What do they do about that? More of same. And more chaos ensues...

Now, and this is key, how do Keynesians react to this self-generated abyss of chaos borne
on stayssyss of status quo Aristotelian and purely dialectical 'sameness?'

They respond, totally defensively, "Nobody could have anticipated that!"

To Doug, that is a blatant Keynesian admission that their core axiom of central planning for results...doesn't work!

So, at its core, Keynesianism is just another classical, dialectical failure.

Quantum~reality shows us that reality is macroscopically uncertain. Classical planning for
social 'results' are, via inept predication, formally expected to be certain...and never are...

Keynesians are fools! Why? Their classical thingking methods are bogus.


End Segment 3 - 13Nov2011 Aside.

Doug doesn't accept a notion of classical 'stability' as viable since it is innately and intrinsically anti-quantum.

However, if anything needs stabilization, and as pointed out quite evidently by Richard Dawkins in his Selfish Gene, it is survivability.
Dawkins said that something like this, "That which survives practices an evolutionarily stable strategy, an ESS."

What is our best exemplar? Nature. What modalityings are involved? Interspecies competition.
Those who succeed survive.
Those who do n¤t succeed become extinct, perhaps have to adapt to a better survival strategy.

Notice how quantum~uncertainty (indetermination) reigns in this natural survival process.

One of many Keynesian Errors is to expect and demand analytic determinism.
This is garbage intellect, garbage hyle-psyche, at its worst.

Consider Homo Sapiens vis-à-vis Neandertal and Cro Magnon. (Read Jean Auel's series.)

Thinkq ahead: fathom Neo Sapiens vis-à-vis Homo Sapiens.

What economic system are we talking about here which best emulates Nature? Capitalism.
(Subsequently, subsegmentally, Doug will emphasize quantum~capitalism hyper classical-capitalism.)

Keynesians want price stability. Capitalists want survival stability. Keynesianism
destroys survivability by disallowing competition for selective survivability.
(Ponder quanton(unsaids,saids). See Doug's wMBUquantum~partiality tool.)

Those who survive deselect those who have lessor survival strategies.

Doug likes to think about that in a less dramatic manner. Keynesians are deselecting
themselves via their unnatural classical methods which deny Nature and quantum~reality.

Doug's next and several segments will hover around quantum memes of free
market competitive survival stability hyper Keynesian price, et al., 'controls' stability.

Essentially, when we focus on 'price controls,' we tend to destroy natural competitive aspects
of any economic system which we want to survive, thus reducing its survival prospects.
Price freedom is only one of many means to survival and a key aspect of capitalistic competition.
Autsimilarly [Vv]alue freedom and thus free markets, n¤t Keynesians' controlled and manipulated markets.

So we really do not want any 'classical stability,' since its controls inhibit adaptive change.
Quantum~memes of stability embrace absolute change, evolution, uncertainty,
adaptation via natural selection, and individual freedom of competition.

Hayek agrees, and claims planning should find its bases in improving
adaptively competitive aspects of finance, economics, and business.

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 2 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

A Grundlagen for Studies of Vagaries of Planning for Stability

We really need to have our memes of quantum~complementation "energy~welled" in our minds.
(Doug calls our minds "quantum~stages." Doug's nonstandard label offers a new quantonic way
of thinkqing about a quantum~holographic version of Hannibal Lecter's "memory palace.")

You may quite fairly ask, "Why?"

Simply, that is how our quantum~stages appear to work, by interrelating our quantum~stages' energy~wellings in self~other~complementary ways.
(Refer Bohm, Pribram, Satinover, Mae-wan Ho, Henri Louis Bergson, to some extent William James, et al.)

Danah Zohar explains this better than Doug ever could near end of her last chapter of her extraordinary Quantum Self.
Her name, for your edification, hermeneuted in quantum~energy of Autiot means "Emergent and
cyclic energy dancing with life" (that's Danah) and "and its text (autsimilar I Ching)" (that's Zohar).
(Doug's Autiot for Danah, FYI, is Dallet~Noun~Hay. Zohar: Zayn~Waw~Hay~Raysh.)
When one thinkqs of this in quantum~biological terms it's like our living~body (phenome) and its DNA (genome).
Most of us are familiar with genomes as ensembles of protein designs. Fewer of us may be familiar
with phenomes as ensembles of all phenotypes, body parts in a sense, in a living organism.
Looking at a person's phenome is what a person 'looks like.'
Looking at a previously unknown genome, we have no hermeneutic what its phenome might look like.

Let's see what she has to say, (she ends her book with "all of the best stuff.")

Accepting a meme that Descartes' and Newton's mechanical models are essentially bogus...

"Hence the many books and articles written about quantum physics and holism, quantum physics and Eastern mysticism, quantum physics and healing, quantum physics and psychic phenomena, and so on. All have been partial and groping attempts to articulate something that is in the air, something that answers people's need for a more coherent world picture--a need to find a unifying explanation of ourselves and our universe and a unifying foundation for our behavior. But none has really grounded this need itself in actual physics of consciousness, and thus none has been able to lay a solid, physical basis for a quantum world view.

"Once we have made this connection, once we have seen that the physics of human consciousness emerges from quantum processes within the brain and that in consequence human consciousness and the whole world of its creation shares a physics with everything else in this universe--with the human body, with all other living things and creatures, with the basic physics of matter and relationship, and with the coherent ground state of the quantum vacuum itself--it becomes impossible to imagine a single aspect of our lives that is not drawn into one coherent whole.

"The quantum world view transcends the dichotomy between mind and body, or between inner and outer, by showing us that the basic building blocks of mind (bosons) and the basic building blocks of matter (fermions) arise out of a common quantum substrate (the vacuum) and engaged in a mutually creative dialogue whose roots can be traced back to the very heart of reality creation. Crudely put, mind is relationship and matter is that which it relates. Neither, on its own, could evolve or express anything; together they give us ourselves and the world.

"The creative dialogue between mind and matter is the physical basis of all creativity in the universe and is also the physical basis of human creativity. The quantum self experiences no dichotomy between the inner and the outer because the two, the inner world of mind (of ideas, values, notions of goodness, truth, and beauty) and the outer world of matter (of facts), give rise to each other.

"The quantum world view transcends the dichotomy between the individual and relationship by showing us that people can only be the individuals they are within a context. I am my relationships--my relationships to the subselves within my own self (my past and my future), my relationships to others, and my relationships to the world at large.

"I am I, uniquely myself, because I am an utterly unique pattern of relationships, and yet I cannot separate this I who I am from those relationships. For the quantum self, neither individuality nor relationship is primary because both arise simultaneously and with equal 'weight' from the quantum substrate. In the case of individual persons and their relationships, that substrate is a Bose-Einstein condensate in the brain, in the case of individual particles and their relationships, that substrate is a Bose Einstein condensate in the quantum vacuum.

"The quantum self thus mediates between the extreme isolation of Western individualism and the extreme collectivism of Marxism or Eastern mysticism.

"Similarly, the quantum world view transcends the dichotomy between human culture and Nature, and indeed imposes the constraint of the natural upon the ultimate success of the cultural.

"The physics of consciousness that gives rise to the world of culture--to art, ideas, values, moralities, and even to religions--is the same physics that gives us the world of Nature. In both cases it is a physics driven by the need to maintain and increase ordered coherence in free response to the environment. The quantum self is, by the very mechanics of its consciousness, a natural self--a free and responsive self--and its world, ultimately, will reflect the world of Nature. When it does not, that world will fail.

"In summary, the quantum world view stresses dynamic relationship as the basis of all that is. It tells us that our world comes about through a mutually creative dialogue between mind and body (inner and outer, subject and object), between the individual and his personal and material context, and between human culture and the natural world. It gives us a view of the human self that is free and responsible, responsive to others and to its environment, essentially related and naturally committed, and at every moment creative."

Quotes transcribed by Doug from last two text pages, pp. 236-237, of her fine book, Quantum Self, 1990, Quill, 268 total pages including index.

As I wrote in my reviews of her work in Chapter One, Danah is very close to what Quantonics teaches. Doug's only gripes in this set of quotes are an (perhaps only partial~) absence of quantum~memes of middle~inclusion and quantum~vacuum as isoflux which for Doug is key to all that energy hiding itself from those of us who reside predominately in actuality. A major gripe, too, is her use of dichotomies even though she bemoans them. I also think Danah could benefit from exposure to Mae-wan Ho's memes of coherence (as a metaphor of Danah's 'holism'), and autonomy (a metaphor of Danah's islandic individuality) (the Rainbow and the Worm) as a quantum~cultural solution to many of our world's current troubles.

Danah's qualification of her use of 'physics' isn't thorough enough for Doug. Bohm, as Doug evidenced in Chapter One, has said (we infer) that a new physics, a new quantum physics, may n¤t be mechanical. Yet many of Danah's classical semantics and nomenclature appear to drag an anchor of classical mechanicity around with them. See Doug's QELR of 'physics.' With some arrogance and putrid hubris, Doug would replace all occurrences of Danah's 'physics' with his own remediation of it: physics. Said remediation suggests a New Way of Thinkqing of 'physics' as n¤n analytic, n¤n material, n¤n objective, unconcrete, unstoppable, and n¤n quantitative (except perhaps for Peano~esque counting, especially wave number).

Quoted text remains unsullied by Doug. I did want to embolden her, "When it does not, that world will fail." Doug sees that as what is happening to Keynesianism and FRBanks nowings. This is some of 'the' best prose on quantum~reality Doug has ever read. That's why it seemed prudent to share it with you and encourage you to purchase this book and absorb it as well as you have qua. Doug - 19Nov2010.

Doug's quotes of Danah Zohar in that light blue text box ask Economists to view all terms
and memes and nomenclature as Danah writes about us, i.e., "I am I, uniquely myself, because I am an utterly unique
pattern of relationships, and yet I cannot separate this I who I am from those relationships.": as both~ands of self~other.

That is what we mean, in Quantonics, by quantum~complementation!
All terms, in this case in Economics, are ihn all terms!
All terms in Economics self~other coobsfect and interrelate, to greater and lesser affectationings, all terms in Economics.
Quantum~holographic middle~inclusion (what Danah calls holism) is ubiquitous and massively thorough.
See Doug's coined coinside.

Doug would add that we need to start viewing terms, memes, nomenclature, etc., as always quantum~partial, always enthymemetic.
Why? Danah mentions some requisites, dynamicity as one we can see just above.
Doug would add: evolution, selection, awareness, middle~inclusion,
everywhere~holographic~associativity, absolute change, and perhaps many more...

Another way to say this is quantons can never be classically 'complete.' Due evolution alone, they are always partial.
What they will become, their ultimate potentia are left unsaid, left to emerge and survive...possibly die.

Next segment Doug will treat both planning and stability as memes which are always partial, always
enthymemetically incomplete, never classically final and never classically stoppable for analysis, never classically perpetual as 'fact.'

Those issues beg a whole New Way of Thinkqing, perhaps what Doug intends by Quantonics.

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index


Chapter 2, Segment 1 - Value vis-à-vis value, A Quantonics Chautauqua in Quantum~Economics

Everything About Economics is Quantum~Complementary...

Doug left off Chapter 1 hinting strongly at quantum~complementarity of hypoinflation and hyperinflation.

Doug's quantum~philosophy declares quantum~complementarity is intrinsic to quantum~reality.

Classical philosophy innately, canonically, and dogmatically denies any quantum~complementarity.

Quantum~complementarity is about perpetually evolving stindyanic interrelationshipings. Doug calls that phil¤s¤phy am(n)d scihænce, "Quantonics."

Classical philosophy and science are about perpetually static and concrete interactions among formal objects. Pirsig calls it, "being stuck." Doug calls it, "scalarbation."
In more colloquial terms, "Classicism is a con job."

Doug coined "dichon" as a word for a single classical interaction twixt formal objects like A and B.
For example, classical mathematics are all about interactions among formal, static, independent and perpetually stable
[at least tentatively stoppable, conveniently and conventionally stoppable: please self apprise Doug's QELR of 'stop']
classical objects which may be signified with static scalarific reifying 'names' like A and B.
Colloquially, then, classical maths are all "con jobs." Doug's qua can make that a lot worse!
All classical disciplines (including economics) in humanity's current epistemology are "con jobs."

Doug [semantically, hermeneutically, heuristically] coined "quanton" as a w¤rding for a single quantum~interrelationshiping
of two holographic energy~wellings. Let's refer them, using Pirsig's affective nomenclature, "Aing and Bing."
(Mario Bunge actually coined 'quanton' in about 1978.)

So, classically, we may speak formally of interactions among mechanical objects.

And, quantumly, we may speak of complementarity as interrelationshipings among quantons which aggregate as quantum~holographic energy~wellings. See Doug's 3D Fuzzons page.

Countless (perhaps all) interrelationships in Economics are treated by Keynesians as formal interactions. They do not view them as quantum~complementary.

"Doug, why do they not view relationships as complementary in a quantum sense?"

Doug's answer follows Niels Bohr's answer. Bohr said that classically "opposites are complementary."
(Niels Bohr's Danish Coat of Arms says, "Contraria Sunt Complementa." See Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics,
Shambhala paperback, 1975, 1981, 1995, pp. 142-144 out of 366 total pages including index.)
So, Doug is claiming, when you reify quantons as dichons you disable your individual qua to thinkq quantumly.
And so, that is what Keynesians, et al., do.

Doug has found a great quote of Friedrich A. Hayek which may illustrate Doug's point even better.
In Doug's following quote of Hayek he tumbles to quantum aspects of planning.
He doesn't write "complementary," but he ostensibly suggests it.
Too, he shows us dialectical errors of Keynesians' planning for economic stability as antithetic quantum~planning for
capitalistic evolution as requiring planning for a natural selection process based in and upon intrinsic competition in nature.
Keynesians literally, hylically hate any kinds of they waste effort trying to dialectically eliminate it.
Of course, all of their dialectical efforts are, indeed from any quantum~complementarospective, Error!

"It is of the utmost importance to the argument of this book
for the reader to keep in mind that the planning against which
all our criticism is directed is solely the planning against competition--
the planning which is to be substituted for competition.
This is the more important, as we cannot, within the
scope of this book, enter into a discussion of the very necessary
planning which is required to make competition as effective
and beneficial as possible. But as in current usage 'planning'
has become almost synonymous with the former kind of planning,
it will sometimes be inevitable for the sake of brevity to
refer to it simply as planning, even though this means leaving
to our opponents a very good word meriting a better fate."

See end of Chapter III, p. 42, last paragraph, Hayek's Road to Serfdom,
University of Chicago Press, 1944, paperback, 248 total pages including index.

Hayek doesn't say so, but his words show us he intuits memes of planning as non dialectical, and
his own hermeneutics include quantum~complementarities of all kinds of plannings' memes.
Though he only describes two complements: planning for competition (he prefers), planning against competition (he abhors),
we sense his own breadth of pneuma suggesting many more.

Among his opponents we must include Keynesians. All Keynesians are against capitalism, against competition,
against evolutionary favor of their utopia of ideal centrally managed Marxist 'stability.'
So, dear reader, it may become evident why our current fiscal system is collapsing in a kind of radical, mismanaged disorder.
Keynesianism is anti quantum! It is anti natural. It is doomed, and we are watching its death throes as Doug writes this.

While our quantum~clock perpetually and relentlessly keeps on ticking...

To be continued...



Chapter Two Index

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2011-2030 — Rev. 4,10Feb2016  PDR — Created 12Jan2011  PDR
(12-13Jan2011 rev - Set up Chapter 2, Segments 1-12. Add 'Dougs Key Classical vav Quantum Assumptions' anchor. Add seg 12 link to Hume's SRS re "Dialectic is bogus.")
(18Jan2011 rev - Add 'Quantonics Strength and Weakness' anchor and 'A Quanton Can Act Like An Aut' quanton(strength,weakness) link under seg 11 'Assumptions.')
(21Jan2011 rev - Add 'Heraclitus Accounting' anchor under Chapter 2 Segment 11's Assumptions.)
(1,10Feb2011 rev - Add 'Classical Planning is Invalid' anchor to Segment 11. Add 'Quantum Production HotMeme' and 'Quantum Abduction HotMeme' anchors to seg 9.)
(15Feb2011 rev - Typos in Seg 3.)
(29Mar2011 rev - Seg 12 punctuation.)
(28May2011 rev - Add 'gradient' QELR link in Seg 3.)
(6,27Jun2011 rev - Point PBings detail descriptions to Chapter 3. Reset legacy markups. Add Ch. 1 & 3 links near page top.)
(29Jul2011 rev - Add 'The Account' anchor.)
(1,25Aug2011 rev - Add 'Scintilla Quantum Tell Flux' commentary under Segment 12 of Chapter 2. Repair Segment 12 punctuation. Add Seg 12 commentary, "There would be n¤ gravity!")
(30-31Aug2011 rev - Add updates to Segment 11 Assumptions. Extend updates.)
(11Sep2011 rev - Add 'Autsimilarity Gradience Omnitors Equilibria Changings' anchor under Seg 11 Assumptions.)
(13Nov2011 rev - Add an 'Keynesians are fools' aside under Seg 3. Repair Doug's gross misspellings of Hayek's name. Ugh! Add Seg 6 'Value vav value, hyper vav hypo' aside.)
(8,23Dec2011 rev - Add a second anchor labeled 'Heraclitus Account.' Update Seg 8 with 'empiritheory hyper rationalism.')
(15Apr2012 rev - Add 'A Reservoir of Wave Functions' link near beginning of Segment 1.)
(25May2012 rev - Add 'Flux Simple State Complex' Seg 12 anchor.)
(22,27Jul2012 rev - Add "Mixing All Things in All" quote under compound cycloidal cosmic motionings graph.)
(1-2Oct2012 rev - Repair typos. Add links.)
(20,26Nov2012 rev - Add 'The Logos' anchor, Segment 11, 'Doug's key assumptions.' Add Segment 12 links to new and updated QELRs of 'contradict,' and 'complement.')
(28Dec2012 rev - Update Seg 10 topic 'status quo' to use "rinse and repeat.")
(27-29Jun2013 rev - Add Diels Kranz [B 53] quote.)
(5-6Jul2013 rev - Develop quantum~Value assessment tetragramation for terms free and slave. Add Heraclitus quotes [B 51], [B 53], and [B 60].)
(8Jul2013 rev - Add Heraclitus quotes [B 60] and [B 80].)
(22Jan2014 rev - Repair links under detailed talking point omniscription 'quantum~evolutionary individual competition' in segment 11.)
(16,31Mar2014 rev - Add an update under Segment 6. Reset legacy markups. Update talking points. Add Talking Points anchor.)
(3Dec2014 rev - Make page current. Add Qycloids graph. Reset legacy markups. Adjust color.)
(27Jan2015 rev Add 'Why Peace is Uncertainty' link under Segment 11, Heraclitus' B 53 quotation re 'War is Father of All.')
(1Jun2015 rev - Add 'Quantum~Assessment' link under Heraclitus' B 53 quote commentary, 'Value~Assessing.')
(4,10Dec2015 rev - Add a link to Doug's "A Lesson in Good and Evil" from his translation of Sepher Yetsira Ch6, V2, word 25. More updates to Heraclitus Diels Kranz quotes.)
(17-18Jan2016 rev - Add [B 60] quote narrative and graphic.)
(4Feb2016 rev - Add QVH Table and Quantum~Assessment links under Heraclitus' "War is Father of All" narrative.)
(10Feb2016 rev - Add link to 'Genetic Defect in Human Reason' under beginning of Segment 11.)