(Verbatim David Hume. Mostly following
Hafner Library of Classics, 1948.)
(Relevant to Pirsig, Quantum Gn¤stic
Jesuitism, and Quantonics Thinking Modes.)
"After I joined the company, whom I found sitting in
Cleanthes's library, Demea paid Cleanthes some compliments on
the great care which he [Cleanthes] took of my [Pamphilus'] education, and on his unwearied perseverance
and constancy in all his
friendships. The father of Pamphilus, said he, was your [Cleanthes']
intimate friend: The son is your pupil; and may indeed
be regarded as your adopted son, were we to judge by the pains
which you bestow in conveying
to him every useful branch of literature and science.
You are no more wanting,
I am persuaded, in prudence, than in industry. I shall, therefore,
communicate to you a maxim, which I have observed with regard
to my own children, that I may learn how far it agrees with your
practice. The method I follow in their education
is founded on the saying of an ancient, 'That students of philosophy
ought first to learn logics,
then ethics, next physics, last of all the nature of
the gods.'1 This science
of natural theology, according to him, being the most profound
and abstruse of any, required the maturest judgment
in its students; and none but
a mind enriched with all the other sciences, can safely be intrusted
"Are you so late, says Philo, in teaching your children
the principles of religion? Is there no
danger of their neglecting, or rejecting altogether those opinions
of which they have heard so little during the whole course of
their education? It is only as a science, replied Demea, subjected
to human reasoning and disputation,
that I postpone the study of natural theology. To season their
minds with early piety, is my chief care; and by continual
precept and instruction, and I hope too by example, I imprint
deeply on their tender minds an habitual reverence for all the
principles of religion. While they pass through every other science,
I still remark the uncertainty of each
part; the eternal disputations of men; the obscurity of all philosophy;
and the strange, ridiculous conclusions, which some of the greatest
geniuses have derived from the principles of mere human reason.
Having thus tamed their mind to a proper
submission and self- diffidence, I have no longer any scruple
of opening to them the greatest mysteries of religion; nor apprehend
[appreciate, understand, accept] any
danger from that assuming arrogance
of philosophy, which may lead them to reject the most established
doctrines and opinions." Our bold, color and
1Chrysippus apud Plut. de repug. Stoicorum.
Our bold and color highlights follow
- black-bold - important to read if you are just scanning
- orange-bold - text ref'd
by index pages
- green-bold - we see Hume
proffering quantumesque memes
- violet-bold - an apparent
In Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we mark
most 'classical English language problematics' using bold violet.
It seems fair to mark our own uses too. As you read do some substitutions
on your own: di to omni, con to com, not to n¤t,
in to ihn, discard wasted the and when discard is impossible
use possessives, etc. See our QELR.
See our QELP.
- blue-bold - we disagree
with this text segment while disregarding context of Hume's overall
- gray-bold - quotable
- red-bold - our direct
-  - our intra text commentary
Again we emphasize omnifferencings in two classes of education:
and, in Quantonics, we teach there are many ways of educating two of which we compare
in this review:
In our view, quantum education
is superior classical education,
and we demonstrate that thoroughly in Quantonics. We teach that
individual is above society and that quantum education is above
classical education. Much of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion appear to assume and classically teach that society,
generally, is above individual. In Quantonics' view classical
society is generally inept, where quantum individuals are generally
We sense, early in this review, that Philo and Demea are classically
educated. Cleanthes appears
classical with some quantum intuitions. We'll see...
Again we have to ask our readers to compare:
- classical science, logics, ethics, physics and natural theology
- quantum scihænce, coquecigrues,
physihcs amd natural thæ¤l¤gy
(As of 28Apr2006 we have yet to QELR
Compare to .
Ponder our table
which shows evolution of classical society and individual compared
to quantum society and individual. For a detail study of how
that table emerged see our October,
2003 TQS News.
Similarly, take some timings to ponder carefully what classicists
mean by "... judgment
in its students..." Then compare that to what Quantonics
means by judgment. Also see
Quantonics' Bases of Judgment.
See our QELR of judge.
Then compare all that to what Hume means in his text just left.
Evaluate Hume. Is his reason more classical? Can you find smidgeons,
pinches of quantum~reason? If we QELR Hume does his reason improve?
Do you agree with his "...none
but a mind enriched with all the other sciences, can safely be
intrusted with [This science
of natural theology]."
Allow us to assist slightly. Ask yourself two questions:
- Is theology scientific?
- Is science theological?
We are currently (1st and 2nd quarters 2006) reviewing Daniel
C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Essentially Dennett,
et al., claim that religion (and presumably then) theology are
In that review, based upon our interpretations of Dennett's
written words, it appears to us that science 'hates' religion
but is very 'religious' about its hatred of religion.
And with recent efforts of believers in 'Intelligent Design,'
it appears to us that religion 'hates' science but is very 'pseudoscientific
and religious' about its hatred of science.
Some call it "war."
What bases of judgment this social pattern of value "war?"
We conclude: dialectic.
Quantonics has shown powerfully and candidly that 'dialectic'
is a failed classical basis of judgment.
Now, is Hume using dialectic to assess "This science of natural theology?"
We do n¤t know, but we want to find out since, in our
confident view, dialectic destroys and disables anyone's qua
for assessing memes in quantum reality.
Is Hume's "enrichment" dialectical? Very good question.
(To view a nonscientifically enriched mind at work comparing
The Enlightenment and 'natural theology,' may we suggest you
read Isaiah Berlin's The Magus of the North about Johann
Georg Hamann a theological irrationalist? Doug - 28Apr2006.)
We love this quote for its real quantumness, "I still remark the uncertainty of each part;
the eternal disputations of men; the obscurity of all philosophy;
and the strange, ridiculous conclusions, which some of the greatest
geniuses have derived from the principles of mere human reason."
Quantum uncertainty engenders real diffidence! We need to
teach quantum uncertainty and diffidence in our children shall
follow. If we teach anything, teach our children that reality
is uncertain, at all scales!
Then explain why. Quantonics is a superb source for that effort.
Much classical obscurity becomes markedly improved clarity
with real quantum~understanding of reality.
What we like best about that kind of quantum~diffidence
is that we do n¤t have to be shy about our confidence
in memes surrounding quantum~uncertainty. Doug.
Assuming we can take this literally, "...assuming
arrogance of philosophy, which may lead them to reject the most
established doctrines and opinions...," and assuming
that Hume would apply this clause's propositions to his own philosophy,
science, logic, ethics as well as theology, we view this as quantum
com(n)fidence based upon acceptance of quantum uncertainty, in
Note that Hume's second paragraph quasi quantum word count
(green bold) to total word count (minus Doug's brackets) is 54/195
which is a nearly 28% quantumesque metric for Hume (just on that
Page top index.
|"Your precaution, says Philo, of seasoning
your children's minds early with piety, is certainly very reasonable; and no
more than is requisite in this profane and irreligious age. But
what I chiefly admire in your plan
of education, is your method
of drawing advantage from the very principles
of philosophy and learning, which, by inspiring pride and self-sufficiency,
have commonly, in all ages,
been found so destructive to the principles of religion. The
vulgar [AKA common], indeed, we may remark, who are unacquainted
with science and profound
enquiry, observing the endless disputes
of the learned, have commonly a thorough contempt
for philosophy; and rivet themselves the faster, by that means,
in the great points of theology which have been taught them.
Those who enter a little into study and enquiry, finding many appearances of evidence in doctrines
the newest and most extraordinary,
think nothing too difficult for human reason; and,
presumptuously breaking through all fences, profane the inmost
sanctuaries of the temple [similar Dennett's Breaking the
Spell]. But Cleanthes will, I hope, agree with me, that,
after we have abandoned ignorance
["abandoning ignorance" is a classical ideal; in quantum
reality we are always fallible due quantum uncertainty and always
somewhat ignorant of whatings
happenings nextings...read carefully our What
is Wrong with Probability as Value?], the surest remedy,
there is still one expedient
left to prevent this profane liberty. Let Demea's principles
be improved and cultivated: let us become thoroughly sensible of the weakness, blindness,
and narrow limits of human reason: let
us duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even
in subjects of common life and practice:
let the errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us;
the insuperable difficulties which attend first principles in
all systems; the contradictions which adhere to the very ideas
of matter, cause and effect, extension, space, time, motion;
and in a word, quantity of all kinds, the object of the only
science that can fairly pretend to any certainty or evidence
when these topics are displayed in their full light, as
they are by some philosophers and almost all divines; who can
retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to
pay any regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so
abstruse, so remote from common life and experience? When the
coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of
parts which renders it extended; when these familiar objects,
I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant
and contradictory; with
what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds,
or trace their history from eternity to eternity?"
Allow us to quote
Henry D. Aiken's æsthetic assessment
of Hume's "characters" in Hume's Dialogues...
"It is, however, a testimony to Hume's skill and the
dramatic balance which he maintains throughout the Dialogues,
that many astute commentators have supposed that Cleanthes
really is the victor in Hume's eyes. Indeed, it is not too
much to say that no finer philosophical dialogues exist in English,
and that the argument is sustained at a level even higher than
that of Berkeley's Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous,
which is its only close competitor. In general, I think we
may say that Philo comes closer to representing Hume than any
of the other characters, especially when he is attacking
the arguments of Cleanthes and Demea, and that Cleanthes represents
him only when he is agreeing with Philo against Demea.
"Each of the characters represents a clearly defined
position. Demea is an exponent of orthodox rationalism. Cleanthes
is a more enlightened representative of the philosophical theism
which takes its cue from the empirical evidence for a Supreme
Designer. Cleanthes is no less opposed to a priori arguments
than Philo, and in Part IX, Hume puts into his mouth the
refutation which gives the rationalist Demea his coup de grace,
'I shall not leave it to Philo,' said Cleanthes . . . 'to point
out the weakness of this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to
me so obviously ill-grounded, and at the same time of so little
consequence to the cause of true piety and religion that I myself
shall venture to show the fallacy of it.' Whereupon he argues,
with an incisiveness equal to anything in the Treatise
that the very phrase 'necessary existence [has] no meaning.'
Hume represents Philo, as we have seen, as a 'careless sceptic,'
but the trenchancy of the destructive criticism which Hume puts
into his mouth should not blind us to his extraordinary imaginative
power and speculative daring. It is Philo, indeed, who provides
us with a riotous surfeit of 'hypotheses' concerning the origins
of things." Pages xiii-xiv, Aiken's 'Introduction' to
Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hafner Library
of Classics, 1948." Our bold.
Summary (Doug's quantum assessment):
- Philo - Careless sceptic; pluralist; somewhat a subjectivist
(In Greek, philo is 'love.')
- Demea - SOMite
par excellence; pure ratiocination is mechanical, formal, ideally
objective (We found no Greek for demea - delta epsilon
micron etc. etc. was closest we could get, something about strings
and packets. We found Latin demens which is roughly 'insane.')
- Cleanthes - Ænlihghtænæd gn¤stic (Couldn't
find a Greek match, but phonetically it is something like "to
clean and wash a broken flower." Do you believe it accidental
Hume named he-r 'clean the s?')
Aside to vividly juxtapose classical 'certainty' with quantum
This is off topic, but while we are playing with word meanings
allow us to heurist and hermeneut 'pneumatically' what pre 'catholic,'
genuine gn¤stic Jesus meant by 'circumcision.' From experts
like Pagels, etc., Jesus meant, roughly, gn¤stically,
"protecting one's own heart from COORs'
dialectical organized dogma." In Pirsigese it is something
like, "protecting one's own soul (Quality) from satan (Exclusive
Doug agrees! And just for your edification...
Now let's do that quantumly, in quantonicsese:
"Protecting one's own '...principal features of intelligence...'1
(quantum~uncertainty) from classically social edicts (classical-certainty)."
Our best exemplar here is socially certain SOMynotsee Germans'
inquisitional holocaust edicts against uncertain Jews. Never,
never, never forget it and disallow any 'certain' socialists
from historically reverse engineering it!!! Then compare socially
'certain' GWBush and a wholly uncertain Middle East. It
makes us, personally, ashamed to be US 'subjects to' Demos
will 'citizens.' Doug.
First, we must learn to 'hate' certainty and love uncertainty,
then realize they are quantum~c¤mplementary and therein
obtain much of their quantum~pneumatic~power, and second, as
Gn¤stic Jesus said, "...don't do what
Doug's partial QELR of our gn¤stic~jesuit quote. Our use
of 'jesuit' is n¤n 'catholic.'
Doug - 10-11May2006.
End vivid aside.
Beware all classical, especially 'social,' uses of reason, plan,
Sure enough, Philo appears to take that stance and
does so well as expressed in text we bolded green.
Quantonics' answer to Philo's [our-large-letter emphasis]
query, "We can say that flux is
crux. Uncertainty is real due reality's absolute change, making
all that we monitor (QELRed we should say "omnitor")
durational, subjective, and qualitative."
See Quantonics' QELR of duration.
1Paul Pietsch in his Shufflebrain.
2Thomas Gospel, Number 6
"While Philo pronounced
these words, I could observe a smile in the countenance both
of Demea and Cleanthes. That of Demea seemed to imply an unreserved
satisfaction in the doctrines delivered: but, in Cleanthes's
features, I could distinguish
an air of finesse; as if he perceived some raillery or artificial
malice in the reasonings of Philo.
"You propose then, Philo, said Cleanthes, to erect religious
faith on philosophical scepticism; and you think, that if certainty
or evidence be expelled from every other subject of enquiry,
it will all retire to these theological doctrines, and there
acquire a superior force and authority. Whether your scepticism
be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by
and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see,
whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether
you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured
by its fall; according to popular
opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious
experience. And this consideration,
Demea, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this
humourous sect of the sceptics. If they be thoroughly in earnest,
they will not long trouble
the world with their doubts, cavils, and disputes;
if they be only in jest, they are, perhaps, bad railers; but
can never be very dangerous, either
to the state, to philosophy,
or to religion.
"In reality, Philo, continued
he, it seems certain, that though a man, in a flush of humour,
after intense reflection on the many contradictions and imperfections of human
reason, may entirely renounce
all belief and opinion, it is impossible for him to persevere
in this total scepticism, or make it appear in his conduct
for a few hours. External objects
[do n¤t exist in quantum reality - Doug] press in upon
him; passions solicit him; his philosophical melancholy dissipates; and even the utmost violence
upon his own temper will not
be able, during any time, to preserve the poor appearance of
scepticism [we need to omnistinguish classical and quantum hues
of scepticism...]. And for what reason impose on himself such
a violence? [said "violence" is a child of classical
dialectics - Doug] This is a point in which it will be impossible
for him ever to satisfy himself, consistently
with his sceptical principles.
So that, upon the whole, nothing
could be more ridiculous
than the principles of the ancient Pyrrhonians [readers please
note that Pyrrho was a Greek philosopher, 365-270 b.c., who believed
that we should expel all notions of judgment in favor of scepticism
since classical reality has n¤ means of establishing certainty;
he was right in his assessment and
wr¤ng in his solution; quantum judgment can deal extremely
well with classical uncertainty by predicting ensemble probability
distributions (students and adepts of Quantonics, be aware
that our italicized phrase is analogous our saying predicting
"quantum wave functions") instead of classically
attempting to predict state-ic events and state-ic scalar probabilities;
in war Pyrrhonisitic battles bore huge losses due fighting "without
judgment," especially fighting "without quantum
judgment" - Doug 7May2006]; if in reality they endeavoured,
as is pretended, to extend, throughout, the same scepticism which
they had learned from the declamations of their schools, and
which they ought to have confined
As we see here classical scepticism (US: skepticism)
suffers all issues of classical thought. Clearly, due subjective
negation, classical 'opposites' are n¤nexistent in reality.
That example emerges here in a classical, formal, mechanical
view of certainty's 'opposite' as uncertainty. But certainty
minus uncertainty and vice versa are n¤t zero are they?
Real certainty is ensemble probabilistic. Real certainty's quantum
c¤mplement is uncertainty.
Enter sophism. For every certainty how many uncertainties
are there? However, classically, 'certainty' precludes uncertainty,
does it 'not?' What exactly does 'certainty' mean? Reality
isn't about 'opposites' is it? Reality is about c¤mplements,
Also note that all probabilities (all stochastics)
are always between (never equal to) zero and one
and never negative.
What does Doug mean by that phasement?
Probability zero says "X shall never happen." Would
you be willing to 'state' ment that with 'certainty?' Probability
one says that "X shall happen uniquely." Careful! We
have to decide what we mean by 'unique.' Can 'unique' circumstances
occur in reality? Do they? Probability depends upon ensembles
of repetition. If we have an ensemble can its circumstances be
Enter quantum uncertainty. Maximum probability can only be
unity minus Nih.
Similarly, minimum probability can only be zero plus Nih. See Doug's c. 2000 absoluteness
oculos, we eidetify reality is quantum~positive.
Why? Reality is a child of flux and flux is always positive.
Energy is always positive. Mass is always positive.
Mathematical operations upon flux are n¤t and cann¤t
be ideally mechanical since flux is durational and may n¤t
be 'stopped' for ideal mechanical, 'numerical,' scalarbation.
HotMeme Measurement itself is flux! DCNR HotMeme
We do n¤t believe that Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes
grasp what we just wrote. But about 200 years have passed since
Hume put his words in their mouths.
Beware classical notions of 'the
state.' State is n¤t flux. Flux is phasemental.
Institutions are 'state' mental via their state-ic dogma, doctrine,
orthodoxy, laws, principles and immutable mores. State is Demos
will. State drives quality out of individuals (tries to).
State tries to metrically quantify people and their behaviors
so they will become predictable drones, good citizens, 'the
people' under civil authority. Through metric quantification
'state' attempts to reify, objectively, all in its domain.
Jesus' gnosis (see Gospel of Thomas) quotes Jesus as saying
that "finding God" is a wholly individual process,
one which individuals must endeavor on their own. Compare that
with organized religions which want to teach one 'social' way
of finding god, a single way which fits all, AKA "catholicism."
Organized religion pursues thought-cop 'certainty' of flock thought
AKA consensus. So do organized 'civilizations.' Mao, Bush,
Hitler, Mussolini, etc. Ugh! Doug - 6May2006.
Are Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes discussing "organized
catholic religion?" Are they discussing "individualized,
Essene Jesuit gnostic religion?"
See Doug's c. 2004 What
is Wrong with Probability As Value?
"In this view, there appears a great resemblance between
the sects of the Stoics [a school founded by Zeno of Citium,
335-263 b.c.] and Pyrrhonians, though perpetual antagonists;
and both of them seem founded on this erroneous maxim that what
a man can perform sometimes, and in some dispositions,
he can perform always, and in every disposition.
When the mind, by Stoical reflections, is elevated into a sublime
enthusiasm of virtue, and
strongly smit with any species of honour
or public good ["public good" is usually social
positivism, Demos will, social consensus, a tragedy of
commons sense (AKA 'vulgarity'], the utmost bodily
pain and sufferings will not
prevail over such a high sense of duty [ESQ 'virtue']; and it
is possible, perhaps, by its means, even to smile and exult in
the midst of tortures. If this sometimes may be the case in fact
and reality, much more may a philosopher, in his school, or even
in his closet, work himself up to such an enthusiasm, and support
in imagination the acutest pain or most calamitous event which
he can possibly conceive.
But how shall he support this enthusiasm itself? The bent of
his mind relaxes, and cannot
be recalled at pleasure; avocations lead him astray; misfortunes
attack him unawares; and the philosopher sinks by degrees
into the plebeian.
"I allow of your comparison between the Stoics and Sceptics,
replied Philo. But you may observe, at the same time, that though
the mind cannot, in Stoicism, support the highest flights of
philosophy [why? dichon(uncertainty, certainty)...],
yet, even when it sinks lower, it still retains somewhat of its
former disposition; and the
effects of the Stoic's reasoning will appear in his conduct in common life, and through
the whole tenor of his actions.
The ancient schools, particularly that of Zeno [n¤t Zeno of Elea n¤t who was
n¤t a Stoic, rather, to Doug, a real~gn¤stic,
rather Philo's is Zeno of Citium, the Stoic - Doug], produced
examples of virtue and constancy
which seem astonishing to present times.
Vain Wisdom all and false Philosophy.
Yet with a pleasing sorcery could charm
Pain, for a while, or anguish; and excite
Fallacious Hope, or arm the obdurate breast
With stubborn Patience, as with triple steel.2
"In like manner, if a man has accustomed himself to sceptical
considerations on the uncertainty
and narrow limits of [dialectical]
reason, he will not entirely
forget them when he turns his reflection on other subjects; but
in all his philosophical principles and reasoning, I dare not say in his common conduct,
he will be found different
from those, who either never formed any opinions in the case,
or have entertained sentiments more favourable to human [dialectical]
Lost, Bk. II.] These are Hafner Library's footnote and brackets,
If we have time, we should all read Milton's Paradise Lost.
William James Sidis recommends The Golden Bough too. Perhaps
Our view is that sceptics treated uncertainty mechanically,
formally. But they then concluded "absolute uncertainty
is all there is...there is no certainty..." Bogus! They,
in our view due their EOOO
thing-king, were SOMites.
Quantum_certainty issi quanton(uncertainty,certainty). Why?
Absolute flux! But flux is waves and waves are QLOs and quantum
reality can 'predict' QLOs. Quantumly we use BAWAM(real_quantum_uncertainty,apparent_quantum_certainty)
to expect and anticipate "whatings
views of classical 'virtue?'
and Doug's dialogue regarding Pirsig's view of virtue?
Pirsig's view illustrates classic virtue as ESQ.
Thus Jon saw 'virtue' as simply ('psychically') "bad."
His view of Greek aretê we model as quanton(DQ,SQ) issi individual_excellence
which in Greek we Quantonically intuit would actually read ('pneumatically')
martus aritos. Gn¤stically, pneumatically, that
reads "individual action (pragma) witnessing (martus)
of individual excellence (aritos)." Doug - 9May2006.
See our Quantonic memes
of 'psychic' vis-à-vis 'pneumatic,' based upon our
Elaine Pagels readings.
[Philo continues...] "To whatever length any one may
push his speculative principles of scepticism, he must act, I
own, and live, and converse,
like other men; and for this conduct
he is not obliged to give
any other reason, than the absolute
necessity he lies under of so doing. If he ever carries
his speculations further than this necessity constrains
him, and philosophizes either on natural or moral subjects, he
is allured by a certain pleasure and satisfaction which he finds
in employing himself after that manner. He considers
besides, that every one, even in common life, is constrained
to have more or less of this philosophy; that from our earliest
infancy we make continual
advances in forming more general
principles of conduct and
reasoning [this gradual accretion of 'know ledge' is how science
declares its own 'success']; that the larger experience we acquire,
and the stronger reason we are endued with, we always render
our principles the more general and comprehensive; and that what
we call philosophy is nothing
but a more regular and methodical
operation of the same kind [We disagree here: classical
science is about what is
'true,' and classical philosophy
is about a meta notion of what is 'truth?'].
To philosophize on such subjects, is nothing
essentially different from
reasoning on common life [If common reason finds its bases in
dialectic, then we wholly disagree with Philo's remarks here.];
and we may only expect greater stability [See? Philo believes
reality is stable, holds still, concrete! Henri Louis Bergson
showed us that two of classicists' greatest self delusions are:
reality is stable, and objects in reality are independent of
one another. We agree with Bergson: reality is absolute
change and waves~flux routinely commingle one another.], if not greater truth, from our philosophy,
on account of its exacter and more scrupulous method of proceeding. [Here, Philo comes across as
a nearly ideal SOMite. Doug - 9May2006.]
"But when we look beyond human affairs and the properties of the surrounding bodies:
when we carry our speculations into the two eternities, before
and after the present state of things;
into the creation and formation of the
universe; the existence and properties of spirits; the powers
and operations of one universal Spirit existing without beginning
and without end; omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, infinite,
and incomprehensible we must be far removed from the smallest
tendency to scepticism not to be apprehensive, that we have here
got quite beyond the reach of our faculties. [Philo
appears to be saying that dialectical classicism appears naïve.
We affirm that potential intuition, vigorously!] So long as we confine our speculations to trade,
or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make appeals, every
moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen our
philosophical conclusions, and remove, at least in part, the
suspicion which we so justly entertain with regard to every reasoning
that is very subtile and refined. But, in theological
reasonings, we have not this
advantage; while, at the same time, we are employed upon objects,
which, we must be sensible, are too large for our grasp, and
of all others, require most to be familiarized to our apprehension.
We are like foreigners in a strange country, to whom every
thing must seem suspicious, and who are in danger every moment
of transgressing against the laws and customs of the people
with whom they live and converse.
We know not how far we ought to trust
our vulgar [i.e., 'common sense'] methods
of reasoning in such a subject; since, even in common life, and
in that province which is peculiarly appropriated to them, we
cannot account for them, and are entirely guided by a kind of
instinct or necessity in employing them."
See Henri Louis Bergson on absolute
From any Quantonics perspective classical necessity is the
bane of classical 'mind.'
To place that perspective in a religious con(m)text...classicists
veritably could 'not' understand ancient sophists, gnostics,
and gnostic-Jesus. Today classicists cann¤t understand
quantum memes and memeos.
Elaine Pagels says that Jesus and his apostles juxtaposed
'psychic' and 'pneumatic.' Psychics correspond what we are describing
as classicists. Pneumatics correspond fairly well our heuristics
of quantum mind as quantum
stage. See Pagels' The Gnostic Paul.
Psychic means 'mind-soul.'
Pneumatic means 'spiritual~breathings.' Recall this as kin
description of individual spirituality.
Jesus referred 'psychics' as 'the called.' Jesus referred
'pneumatics' as 'the elect.' Jesus' elect are few and
gnostic. Jesus' called are many and brain dead. To grasp Nag
Hammadi and gnostic texts one must learn to do BAWAM
reading. For example Paul in his Pauline gospels spoke in two
and QTMs. Classical
Psychics read biblical texts literally. Pneumatics read biblical
texts mimicking Paul's speaking style: we call that "quantum
hermeneutic reading." For examples of Doug's infant efforts
in this vein see Doug's
Gnostic Update 2. To us this is a huge part of "The
Quantonics adepts can gain much by reading Elaine Pagels'
opus. If you wish to keep close ties with what Doug just wrote,
read Pagels' The Gnostic Paul, Trinity Press, 1975. Exceptional!
Exquisite! Expository! Exegetic! Doug - 7May2006. See our Classical_vis-à-vis
Quantum Religion Recommended Reading.
But what were gnostics, including both Jesus and Paul trying
to do? They were teaching and issuing "messages" (gospel)
to quantons(elect,called). It's like every other word is Greek
and every other word is Esperanto. 'The elect' understand
both Greek and Esperanto and 'the called' only understand Esperanto.
Recall that 'catholics' used to do this in English speaking countries
and Spanish speaking countries and...using Latin and a local
Psychics can only grasp literal classical 'ideas,' so they
listen classically and interpret classically and as a result
"spiritually languish." Pneumatics can grasp metamemes
in language and symbols and gain election in their individual
processes of "finding God."
If all of this is a "design" then why are few greater
than many? It appears, at least to us it does, that those who
really want to know, to be k~now~ings, can. That some
of us apparently couldn't was problematic for Jesus and his apostle
elects: Didymos (i.e., Jesus' twin) Judas Thomas, Mary~John,
and Paul included.
"So long as we confine our speculations
to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make appeals,
every moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen
our philosophical conclusions, and remove, at least in part,
the suspicion which we so justly entertain with regard to every
reasoning that is very subtile and refined."
If common sense and experience are interpreted and judged
dialectically, that text is just awful!
Real morals, politics,
and criticism are n¤t ideal classical objects which may
be analysed dialectically. Actually, they are more like what
Philo is about to describe as religion. Quantum, what we mean
by real, morals, politics, and criticism are subjective, qualitative,
wave~like, and thus only describable as ensemble likelihood
For those technical, perhaps a few of refined quantique,
among you, we want to emphasize relevance of our underlined words.
Kurt Gödel was, in our view, a sublime sophist. He quantumly
used recursive, fractal, self~referent, Autiot~like "Gödel
sentences" to describe 'numbers as real' semantics. "Gödel
sentences" are sophisms, quantum sophisms, Autiot
sophisms! (Some-many attempt to view them dialectically, mechanically,
'psychically,' literally, to no avail... ponder 'literally' as
'lite' rally... )
All sophisms may be quantum~m¤daled
as quantum~flux, thence QLOs. Add link
- 1Apr2012 - Doug.
Quantum_M¤daled_Reality issi Gödel_Sentences
Another way to show this is:
QMR issi quantons(fuzzons,fuzzons)
Why is this crucial to grasp?
Classicists describe (actually believe they can 'define')
reality using reified axiomatic 'state' ments about mechanical
properties of dialectically lisr
Quantumists describe reality
using stochastic phasements
about "flux is crux" probability, plausibility, and
likelihood omnistributions of quantons.
One exemplar is a quantum~hologram which is Energy~Wellings
Interrelationshipings as quantons which look like this:
which are pneumatically soroning
Doug - 23Mar2010
In any quantum hologram, (any human brain viewed holographically),
a holographic nexus is a quanton. That is how we describe
Quantons are "Gödel sentences" describing nexi
We gain semantic leverage in our grasp of a meme of quantonic
Doug - 23Mar2010, 27Sep2006, 1Apr2012.
Quantum reality is a strange land indeed. It is queer and
barely fathomable by classical sentience.
However, we must proceed. We must leave SOMland's mythos and
enter quantas' emersos.
See our QELRs of general,
etc. Ponder why 'scientific fact'
is n¤t and may n¤t be general... Doug - 9May2006.
"All sceptics pretend, that, if reason be considered
in an abstract view, it furnishes invincible arguments against
itself; and that we could never retain any conviction
or assurance, on any subject, were not
the sceptical reasonings so refined and subtile, that they are
not able to counterpoise
the more solid and more natural arguments derived from the senses
and experience. But it is evident, whenever our arguments lose
this advantage, and run wide of common life, that the most refined
scepticism comes to be upon a footing with them, and is able
to oppose and counterbalance them. The one has no
more weight than the other. The mind must remain in suspense
between them; and it is that very suspense or balance, which
is the triumph of scepticism.
"But I observe, says Cleanthes, with regard to you, Philo,
and all speculative sceptics, that your doctrine and practice
are as much at variance in the most abstruse points of theory
as in the conduct of common
life. Wherever evidence discovers
itself, you adhere to it, notwithstanding your pretended scepticism; and
I can observe, too, some of your sect to be as decisive as
those who make greater professions of certainty and assurance.
In reality, would not a man
be ridiculous, who pretended
to reject Newton's explication of the wonderful phenomenon of the rainbow, because that
explication gives a minute anatomy of the rays of light
a subject, forsooth, too refined for human comprehension? [N¤!
Emphatically n¤!] And what would you say to one, who,
having nothing particular
to object to the arguments of Copernicus and Galilæo for
the motion of the earth, should withhold his assent, on that
general principle, that these subjects
were too magnificent and remote to be explained by the narrow
and fallacious [dialectical]
reason of mankind? [Doug would say to green bolded
text, "Amen!" N¤t a 'dialectic sceptical' "amen,"
rather a quantum "amen." Dialectical scepticism lacks
qua to critique dialectical analyticity. Quantum think~king
has qua to do so. (qua - "in a capacity...")
Doug - 9May2006.]
Here, Philo's description of scepticism sounds quantum. We
Trouble is, reality is n¤t common-sensically objective!
Reality is flux! Flux is qualitative and subjective due its
animacy, its included~middle, its everywhere~associativity, its
arbitrary heterogeneous spatio~temporality and spatio~temporal
omnistributionings of all flux.
Objects have specific "holds still" state-ic Cartesian
locus. Flux is n¤n lisr!
We cann¤t scalarbatively
is ensemblings of quala. We have to monitor
(QELRed we should say "omnitor") fluxings. See
Notice Philo's approximation of an included-middle:
"The mind must remain in suspense between them..."
Adepts recognize phrasing like that as kin of our "quantum~straddle."
Copernicus assumed that our Sun was a fixed reference 'point'
(in any Cartesian, Newtonian sense) about which its planets moved
in 'closed' orbits. But our Sun is moving around our Milky Way
at about 180 miles per second and our Milky Way is moving around
??? at likely 10x that 'velocity,' and so on...
So all Sun's planetary orbits are cycloidally 'open.' (Multiversal
open cycloidicity is a vivid tell of quantum gravitation.
See E. T. Bell's Men of Mathematics, 'Pascal,' a MoQite!
Cycloids offer provocative classical notions, perhaps we should
call them "quantum~sophist~paradice," of circle-squaring
and constant time with variable distance: quantum quintessentials
of quantum gravity! Profound, indeed, since quanton 'circle,'
as classically ideal ESQ,
exists n¤t ihn quantum rælihty!
Doug - 27Jun2006.) They do n¤t form closed circles. They
do n¤t form closed Keplerian ellipses. There are n¤
'fixed' references! There is n¤ such classical notion
as "zero momentum," anywhere in reality's multiverses,
period. See our critique of Itzhak Bentov's Stalking the Wild
Pendulum titled A Quantum
|"There is indeed a kind of brutish and
ignorant scepticism, as
you well observed, which gives the vulgar a general prejudice against what they do not easily understand, and makes
them reject every principle which requires elaborate reasoning
to prove and establish it.
This species of scepticism is fatal to knowledge,
not to religion; since we
find, that those who make greatest profession of it, give often
their assent, not only to
the great truths of Theism and natural theology, but even to
the most absurd tenets which
a traditional superstition
has recommended to them. They firmly believe in witches, though
they will not believe nor attend to the most simple proposition
of Euclid. But the refined and philosophical sceptics fall into
an inconsistence of an opposite nature. They push their
researches into the most abstruse corners of science; and their
assent attends them in every step, proportioned to the evidence
which they meet with. They are even obliged to acknowledge,
that the most abstruse and remote objects are those which are
best explained by philosophy. Light is in reality anatomized.
The true system of the heavenly bodies
is discovered and ascertained.
But the nourishment of bodies by food is still an inexplicable
mystery. The cohesion of the parts of matter is still incomprehensible.
These sceptics, therefore, are obliged, in every question, to
consider each particular
evidence apart, and proportion their assent to the precise degree
of evidence which occurs. This is their practice in all natural,
mathematical, moral, and political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological
and religious? Why must conclusions
of this nature be alone rejected on the general presumption of
the insufficiency of human reason, without any particular discussion of the evidence? Is not such an unequal conduct
a plain proof of prejudice
and passion?" [We agree. Sentient reason is fallible yet
has nearly unlimited potential. Insufficient is a relative term.
Many of these terms are subtly and n¤t so subtly quantum~relative. N¤t
Einsteinian relative: his relativity is intentionally
We unearth here an assumed dichotomy of science and religion
when it comes to 'reason.'
We and our mentors have expounded this one into notoriety.
Human reason is falacious when it supposes reality is syllogistic
by Aristotelian authority. Aristotle blew it!
Subject and object, mind and body, immaterial and material,
religion and science are n¤t mechanically, analytically,
dialectically provable contradictories!
They are quantum c¤mplements of all and ¤thær. Subqjæct
is ihn ¤bjæct and ¤bjæct
is ihn subqjæct,
mihnd is ihn
b¤dy and b¤dy is ihn
mihnd, immaterial is ihn
material and material is ihn immaterial,
religion is ihn science and science
is ihn religion, and all of that
is ihn all and all is ihn
all of that. We just described quantum
coherence as quantum cowithinitness of classically-apparent
Classically object is 'above' subject. Quantumly classical
'objects' cannot 'evolve,' and subjective reality evolves with
ease, so in that sense subjective memeos
of reality are quantumly above objective notions of reality.
Subject is quality. Object is quantity. Quality is above quantity!
Subject is dynamic. Object is state-ic. Dynamic is more highly
evolved and evolving than state-ic.
Objective thing-king cann¤t explain biological nourishment.
Subjective think-king easily explains biological nourishment:
Flux eats flux. Objects cann¤t 'eat.'
See absurd, opposite,
"Our senses, you say, are fallacious; our understanding erroneous; our ideas, even of
the most familiar objects extension, duration, motion
full of absurdities
You defy me to solve the difficulties,
or reconcile the repugnancies
which you discover in them.
I have not capacity for so
great an undertaking: I have not
leisure for it: I perceive it to be superfluous. Your
own conduct, in every circumstance,
refutes your principles, and shews the firmest reliance on all
the received maxims of science, morals, prudence, and behaviour.
"I shall never assent to so harsh an opinion as that
of a celebrated writer,3 who says, that the Sceptics
are not a sect of philosophers:
they are only a sect of liars. I may, however, affirm (I hope
without offence), that they are a sect of jesters or railers.
But for my part, whenever I find myself disposed
to mirth and amusement, I shall certainly choose my entertainment
of a less perplexing and abstruse nature. A comedy, a novel, or at most a history, seems
a more natural recreation than such metaphysical subtilties and
"In vain would the sceptic make a distinction
between science and common life, or between one science and another. The arguments employed in
all, if just, are of a similar nature, and contain
the same force and evidence. Or if there be any difference
among them, the advantage lies entirely on the side of theology
and natural religion. Many principles of mechanics are founded
on very abstruse reasoning; yet no
man who has any pretensions to science, even no
speculative sceptic, pretends to entertain the least doubt with
regard to them. The Copernican system contains
the most surprising paradox, and the most contrary
to our natural conceptions, to appearances,
and to our very senses: yet even monks and inquisitors are now constrained
to withdraw their opposition to it. And shall Philo, a man
of so liberal a genius and extensive knowledge,
entertain any general undistinguished
scruples with regard to the religious hypothesis, which is founded
on the simplest and most obvious arguments, and, unless it meets
with artificial obstacles, has such easy access and admission
into the mind of man?"
3L'art de penser [Antoine (the great) Arnauld
and others; La Logique ou l'art de penser (Port-Royal
Quantum reality is a n¤n negative reality. Flux is
positive energy. Positive energy cann¤t classically become
'null.' Quantum energy can be moved around and coherently~entropically
mutated, but its reality is perpetual. Simply, humans cann¤t
directly sense some coherent quantum reality (photons and their
siblings are notable exceptions) and all of isocoherent quantum
Classical negation becomes 'only apparent' when we
recognize that two positive fluxings can 'cancel' each other.
But that, my friend, is n¤t classical 'negation.' When
we say A minus A is zero, that is a classical, bogus negation
which 'results' in null: "'no' thing."
However when flux 'cancels,' both (indeed many) classically
'non' apparent energies are still real! Naught is nullified.
We still have two complementing quantum positives! It is troublesome
to desnouer them, however.
For some mind lifting examples see Hey and Walters' The
Quantum Universe. Look for pictures of tympani with iron
filings on their skins.
Doug - 9May2006.
(Our Earth's people are claiming an energy 'shortage.' What
we just showed you is that energy is ubiquitous and unlimited.
All we have to learn how to do is desnouer quanton(Jekyll,Hyde).
Really! This is quantum reality folks! And our USA has
creative talents to make it happen if we are just willing to
move from CTMs to QTMs.)
"And here we may observe, continued
he, turning himself towards Demea, a pretty curious circumstance
in the history of the sciences. After the union of philosophy
with the popular religion, upon the first establishment of Christianity,
nothing was more usual, among
all religious teachers, than declamations against reason, against
the senses, against every principle derived merely from human
research and enquiry. All the topics of the ancient Academics
were adopted by the fathers; and thence propagated for several
ages in every school and pulpit throughout Christendom. The Reformers
embraced the same principles of reasoning, or rather declamation;
and all panegyrics on the excellency of faith, were sure to be
interlarded with some severe strokes of satire against natural
reason. A celebrated prelate too,4 of the Romish communion,
a man of the most extensive learning, who wrote a demonstration
of Christianity, has also composed a treatise, which contains all the cavils of the boldest
and most determined Pyrrhonism. Locke seems to have been the
first Christian who ventured openly to assert, that faith
was nothing but a species
of reason; that religion was only a branch of philosophy;
and that a chain of arguments, similar to that which established any truth in morals, politics, or
physics, was always employed in discovering
all the principles of theology, natural and revealed. The
ill use which Bayle and other libertines made of the philosophical
scepticism of the fathers and first reformers, still further
propagated the judicious
sentiment of Mr. Locke. And it is now
in a manner avowed, by all pretenders to reasoning and philosophy,
that atheist and sceptic are almost synonymous. And as it is certain that
no man is in earnest when
he professes the latter principle, I would fain hope that there
are as few who seriously maintain the former."
Only quality thought which "...established
any truth in morals, politics, or physics..."
must claim, due reality's own quantumness, that change is absolute
and that 'truth' is an agent of its own change.
In general...notions of classical, stabile, OSFA
truth founded in SOM's
Bases of Judgment are corrupt and bogus.
"Don't you remember, said Philo, the excellent saying
of Lord Bacon on this head?
That a little philosophy, replied Cleanthes,
makes a man an Atheist: a great
deal converts him to religion. That is a very judicious remark too, said Philo. But
what I have in my eye is another
passage, where, having mentioned David's fool, who said in his
heart there is no God, this
great philosopher observes, that the atheists nowadays have a double share of folly;
for they are not contented to say in their hearts
there is no God, but they
also utter that impiety with their lips, and are thereby guilty
of multiplied indiscretion
and imprudence. Such people, though they were ever so much in
earnest, cannot, methinks,
be very formidable.
"But though you should rank me in this class of fools,
I cannot forbear communicating
a remark that occurs to me, from the history of the religious
and irreligious scepticism with which you have entertained us.
It appears to me, that there are strong symptoms of priestcraft
in the whole progress of this affair. During ignorant
ages, such as those which followed the dissolution
of the ancient schools, the priests perceived, that atheism,
deism, or heresy of any kind, could only proceed from the presumptuous
questioning of received opinions, and from a belief that human
reason was equal to every thing. Education
had then a mighty influence over the minds of men, and was almost
equal in force to those suggestions of the senses and common understanding, by which the most determined
sceptic must allow himself to be governed. But at present,
when the influence of education is much diminished,
and men, from a more open commerce of the world, have learned
to compare the popular principles of different
nations and ages, our sagacious divines
have changed their whole system of philosophy, and talk the language
of Stoics, Platonists, and Peripatetics, not
that of Pyrrhonians and Academics. If we distrust
human reason, we have now
no other principle to lead
us into religion. Thus, sceptics in one age, dogmatists in another whichever system best
suits the purpose of these reverend gentlemen, in giving them
an ascendant over mankind they are sure to make it their
favourite principle, and established tenet."
If you will allow us to very slightly modify this quote by
adding a single bracketed comment, we can wholly agree with it:
"That a little philosophy, replied
Cleanthes, makes a man an Atheist:
a great deal converts him to [individual,
Socialized religion, in Doug's private and esoteric quantum
perspectives, is a bane of humanity and individuals should forego
its dogmatic Demos will, intellectual abuse, rape, and
corruption. There is n¤ real 'catholic' OSFA religion!
Period! Further, atheism, is a social religion. Root out all
orthodox, Irenaeus-Constantinian-heretical (i.e., individual
choice as heresy, thus catholic)
dogma and hierarchical and hegemonical dogma. We have used this
too often but it is so prescient, "The first divine was
the first rogue who met the first fool." Voltaire.
Notice that dogma backwards is "am god."
Go gn¤stic and get your religious and philosophic self~respect
|" It is [only classically] very natural,
said Cleanthes, for men to embrace those principles,
by which they find they can best defend their ['orthodox,' OSFA]
need we have any recourse to priestcraft [however, OSFA 'catholicism,'
says dogmatically, "we must"] to account for so reasonable
an expedient. And, surely
nothing can afford a stronger
presumption, that any set of principles are true, and ought to
be embraced, than to observe that they tend to the confirmation
of true religion, and serve
to confound the cavils [unecessary,
read classically 'uncertain' objections] of atheists,
Libertines, and Freethinkers of all denominations."
Cleanthes just perjured quantum reality!
Hope you are enjoying reading this as much as we are enjoying
Thank you for reading!
Doug - 11May2006
Next installments will take awhile since we are doing about
6-7 reviews in parallel.