Arches

A Dialogue Twixt Jon and Doug

About Robert M. Pirsig's
Metaphysics of Quality
Perspectives of Good and Truth

A series of twelve emails, six from Jon to Doug, and Doug's responses to Jon.

See our 23Jan2006 to email #8.
See our 4Oct2000 rev to email #8. See 4Mar2004 'abortion' link here too.
See our 28Sep2003 rev to email #6. See 4Mar2004 'respect' and 'apoptosis' links here too.



1 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Good and Truth
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:09:57 EDT
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi

I read your exchanges with Bo over the issue of Good vs Truth. I've posted a
few times to both Lila Squad and MD over this issue, but nobody seems very
interested in this aspect of ZMM...to me it seems like the major point of
both of Pirsig's books, that Good should be a placed higher than Truth, and
that Good cannot be defined.

Jon



2 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Good and Truth
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 06:39:46 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hello Jon,

Thanks for your email! Nice to hear from you. We agree, Good over Truth is a
major point of ZMM.

Yes, Pirsig tells us Good is Quality. Quality is Good.

Then he tells us Dynamic Quality is first good. Static Quality is second good.

DQ is first because change is absolute in Pirsig's MoQ. (See links below. Read
our excerpt of part of chapter 29 of ZMM called 'Birth of SOM.' This is long
and difficult, but read it over and over until it becomes clear.)

SQ is second good because DQ creates, evolves and discreates it. DQ creates SQ
as Quality's judgment. But SQ only has temporary privilege. SQ follows an
ontology: becoming, being, unbecoming. SQ transitions (dances, Li-las)
to-and-fro DQ. While SQ is being, it acts as an agent of change for DQ.

Note that truth is SQ! That observation is crucial.

I am unsure why TLS wants to stay away from 'Good.' One possible reason is:
Good is from ZMM, and TLS is about Lila. Also, way back in TLS' beginning, I
remember someone said they had a problem with good-good and bad-good, i.e.,
relative good. (If one assumes truth is absolute, usually one innately dislikes
relative dialectical concepts.)

I think this also goes with resistance to a concept of many truths. Pirsig is
clear in both ZMM and Lila that truth is just SQ. Another way of saying this is
truth is NOT absolute.

So what we have is:

In MoQ, Quality is Good and change is absolute.

In SOM, Dialectic Rules and truth is absolute.

I think many in TLS still believe truth is absolute. (Bo Skutvik does!) To say
good is over truth is like saying truth is not absolute, and they just do not
want to say that.

Take a look at these links, if you haven't already:

Philosophical_Capability
Philosophical_Battle_Winner
Philosophical_Next_Step
RE_MoQ_&_Mu
The_Birth_of_SOM
MoQ_Essence
Interrelationship_Models_Dirac_&_Tao

Hope this helps! Stay in touch.

Many truths to you, Jon,

Doug.

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/


"I believe that it is only when you try
and tell someone else what you think that you
begin to understand it yourself."

Diana McPartlin, Founder, Counselor, and prior WebMaster of
The Lila Squad, TLS — TLS, that notorious place where
persistent promulgators propound Pirsigean philosophy.



3 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Good and Truth
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:14:50 EDT
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

Thank you for writing back to me. I discovered your website some months ago
and was very impressed by it. It's a tragedy IMO that there are only two
major websites out there (yours and Lila Squad) that seem very interested in
the works of Robert Pirsig. And even the Lila Squad doesn't have very many
contributors. It's a shame IMO that news groups devoted to Elvis and Nintendo
Games get thousands of more posts in an hour than LS get in a whole month.
Shows where most people's minds are, huh? But, Quality is more important than
quantity, and your website is of very high Quality.

Yes, it baffles me that the Good vs Truth aspect of ZMM doesn't get
discussed more thoroughly, and I think you may be right about many of the LS
members considering Truth absolute. To me, it seems obvious that the major
point of ZMM is that, thanks to the Greeks, modern man has been unknowingly
brainwashed into putting Truth before Good in their lives. It doesn't matter
if something is Good if it's not True. It's a brainwash job so complete, that
in one of my posts to LS, I called it the "Mother of All Conspiracy
Theories." Pirsig was on to it that fateful summer at the University of Chicago.
I think that chapter 30 [ZMM] contains [one] of the most important showdowns
in the history of American Literature (although most probably consider that
claim absurdly exaggerated), a showdown not with guns or fists, but with two
massive opposing patterns of thought, Good and Truth, recognizing each other
for the first time through the eyes of two ordinary men, Pirsig and the
Professor. Thousands of years earlier, Truth seekers like Socrates and Plato
had used Dialectic to cut Rhetoric to pieces, and as a result cut Good to
pieces. But at the University of Chicago that fateful summer, Good got up off
the mat and showed Dialectic what Rhetoric was capable of, and knocked
Truth on its ass. A rematch thousands of years in the making, with Good
coming out of retirement! Of course, the tragedy is no one knew what a huge
victory [that] was, because no one knew what a huge villain Truth was, and
Pirsig ended up committed.

Of course no one is saying to ignore Truth. That would be dangerous and
ridiculous. But why is it so hard for us to grasp the concept of putting Good
before Truth? Maybe we just don't know how, I'm not even sure if I do, but
I'd like to find out. Keep up the Good work Doug, and I'd love to hear from
you soon.

Jon



4 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Good and Truth
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 05:49:28 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hi Jon,

And the winning punch was (paraphrased):

"It's an analogy. Socrates said a few pages back it's an analogy."

Doug.



5 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Putting Good First
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:36:24 EDT
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug

I was thinking the other day, how many people really put Good first in their
lives? And just how DO people put good first, at a deep, fundamental level?
When you stop and think about it long enough, we are still a very dumb, cruel
race of sentient beings. We spend billions of dollars on movies and
entertainment while people are dying of hunger and diseases that don't have
enough research money. To most of us, the quest for money is far more
important [than] caring about the very lives of our fellow human beings. If we
don't put money first, we are dumb in the eyes of society, it seems. Is
something wrong with this picture? Money we spend day after day on the most
expensive cars could go toward feeding a hungry child, but nobody wants to
hear that. Sympathy is too often met with sarcasm from others. "Let them help
themselves," seems the attitude. We seem to need a REASON to help people, a
REASON that will be appreciated by society. Too many of us don't want to lend
a helping hand if we don't get a medal or clapped on the back. Sorry I'm
rambling but politics isn't going to help people, we need to make big
internal changes on an individual level. We should not look upon our fellow
humans as COMPETITORS...the whole competition thing is a BIG defect in our
way of thinking, I believe, but SO much of our society is built around it. I
know I am being naive, but do you agree with any of what I'm saying?

Jon



6 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Putting Good First
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:01:56 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hello Jon,

Good to hear from you! See my comments embedded below -

Jon wrote:

Hi Doug

I was thinking the other day, how many people really put Good first in their
lives?

Jon,

This is essence of Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.

I do not have 'correct' answers. I have opinions based on my own beliefs and
what I know/understand about Pirsig's MoQ.

Let me ask you a question. Chinese stole American nuclear weapons secrets. From
USA's perspective those Chinese are 'bad.' But Chinese think they
bought/borrowed American nuclear weapons ideas. From China's perspective that is
'good.'

Now, tell me, Jon: which is it? Is it bad or good? Is it only bad? Is it only
good? Is it both bad and good? Who decides?

Is there only ONE good? What source of decision-making power tells all of us
what that one good is?

We are talking ethics here. If you look on our site under Quantonic Questions
and Answers, you will see I did a piece on ethics. Here is a link:

March_1999_QQA

That link is, IMO, superb! We just added Garn LeBaron's paper there on whether
euthanasia is 'ethical.' Garn uses Pirsigean MoQ reasoning to provide an
answer. If you read that page carefully, I think you can see my position on your
question.

Putting good first in one's life is not a simple, one time intellectual decision.

If this does not help, ask again. If you disagree, please say so. All of our
work is living text, so we change it as we grow and learn.

Doug.

And just how DO people put good first, at a deep, fundamental level?

Jon,

I believe we put good first by living our own lives in aretê-excellence.
I believe we fulfill local promises-obligations-etc. first.

Aside - 28Sep2003:

Here we are nearly four years after this original dialogue commenced.

In those previous two dialogue sentences, there are many classical vis-à-vis
quantum issues; many SOM vis-à-vis MoQ issues.

Locality is a large issue. What do we mean by 'locality?' Quantum l¤cality issi
vastly ¤mnifferent amd ¤mnifferings notions of classical locality.

And what about social SPoVs vis-à-vis individual SPoVs? That question is too simple! Let's
try asking it using some n¤vel comtextually interrelating phrases:

Case 1 social SPoVs  vis-à-vis individual SPoVs This is our simple case. This is classical reality when viewed and practiced using CTMs. Why is it simple? It d¤es n¤t ¤mnistinguish quantum c¤mtexts fr¤m classical context.
Case 2 anthropocentric social SPoVs vis-à-vis anthropocentric individual SPoVs This case is still classical, but our phrase is more specific — more contextually localized, classically. I.e., classically, individual and social SPoVs are anthropocentric: human chauvinistic.
Case 3 anthropocentric social SPoVs vis-à-vis quantum ihndihvihdual SP¤Vs

Now we have a useful basis for comparison. We can develop semantic hermeneutics using these two phrases! Classical anthropocentric social SPoVs place themselves above classical anthropocentric individual SPoVs, and thus show relatively little respect for individual SPoVs.

In MoQ and Quantonics, wæ view quantum ihndihvihdual SP¤Vs as m¤re highly ev¤lved amd m¤rally superi¤r t¤ classical anthropocentric SPoVs. Wæ c¤msider quantum s¤cial SP¤Vs as agents ¤f quantum ihndihvihdual ev¤luti¤n amd impr¤vement: agents ¤f quantum better.

Case 4 quantum social SP¤Vs vis-à-vis quantum ihndihvihdual SP¤Vs This issi quantum reality when viewed amd practiced usihng QTMs.
©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2010 — Rev. 23Aug2008  PDR — Created 28Sep2003  PDR
(2Jan2004 rev - Change copyright date and format.)
(23Aug2008 rev - Reformat table.)

Read Boris Sidis' book Nervous Ills, Chapter XXX titled, 'The Herd and The Subconscious.'

MoQ teaches us that (quantum) Individual SPoVs are morally superior to
(anthropocentric) Social SPoVs. We agree. But ISP¤Vs depend up¤n
quantum s¤cial SP¤Vs! Further, ISP¤Vs cann¤t c¤unt n¤r depend up¤n classical
anthropocentric Social SPoVs!! Quantum ISP¤Vs, acc¤rding t¤ MoQ, emerged fr¤m
quantum s¤cial SP¤Vs!.

(There are some very cogent quantum memes which beg detail pr¤se here.
In Quantonics, all quantum reality emerges from quantum vacuum isoflux.
At issue here is whether we refer quantum isoflux interrelationships "s¤cial."
Our tendency is to say, "Yes!" Doug - 28Sep2003.)

What is important here, is that when anthropocentric Social Values are
destroying any individual, that individual must disobey legacy Social Values
and save he-rself!
Ihndihvihdual Value is above Social Value when any ihndihvihdual's
quantum l¤cal comtext issi in any way threatened by anthropocentric social context.
Why? Quantum Ihndihvihdual Value (as described in Pirsig's ZMM and Lila) issi n¤vel,
m¤re highly ev¤lved amd quantum ensehmble ev¤lvings. Anthropocentric Social Value,
by comparison, is syrupy, viscous, and 'evolving,' if at all, slowly. Its advantage is a
stable, social home for further Quantum Ihndihvihdual Value facultative forays amd
quantum pi¤neering. 'Society' cann¤t pioneer as quantum individuals can.
Anthropocentric 'society,' despite its claims, cann¤t by itself make quantum individual
pioneers. Quantum Ihndihvihdual SPoVs bring a quantum l¤cal spirit into anthropocentric
Societal SPoVs which that 'society' has n¤ other means of providing.

Ultihmately, acc¤rding t¤ our own Quantonics' visi¤n, classical society itself will ev¤lve amd
bæc¤me a m¤re quantum s¤ciety ihn fully rec¤gnized agency ¤f quantum ihndihvihdual
eff¤rts amd pi¤neering. Ihn d¤ing s¤, we see a w¤rld with abundant quantum respect f¤r all
quantum s¤cieties: extra Earth amd all Earth s¤cieties ihncluding n¤nanthropocentric ¤nes.

We are seeing changes in these n¤vel quantum directi¤nings (¤mnirecti¤nings).
Corporations are turning individuals 'free' to do work their way. Individual SPoVs work
better free of hegemonous workplace top down 'management by objective.' Good
w¤rk issi ev¤luti¤nary, n¤t ESQ 'methodological.' (It took Doug a long time to grasp this.)

That last paragraph explains why we believe classical thing-king is wr¤ng. CTMs
tend to place Social Value above Individual Value. We believe a quantum tsunami
¤f cultural changæ issi underway. It will changæ Earth societies from common CTMs
t¤ extra¤rdinary QTMs.

But much effort, and incredibly long periods of classical time are required to do this.
Probably most of Millennium III will be needed.

See our August, 2003 TQS News. It is about this very issue. It is long, but take some
tihmings to read all of it. Social SPoVs vis-à-vis Individual SPoVs is one of our world's most
challenging intuemes. But, in Quantonics, it issi a quantum pr¤cess ¤f aretê! It is about
global mutual ihndihvihdual respect for quantum reality's rich ¤mniversities. We must learn to
venerate our ¤mnifferences, our ¤mnifferings. That's close kin of what John Forbes Nash
was talking about in his Nobel Prize winning Nash Equilibrium.

End 28Sep2003 aside.

Quality is local, but globally-ubiquitously cohesive.

In technical jargon, we are quantum systems and our entire multiverse is a
cohesive quantum system of us and other quantum systems. If you read Mae-wan
Ho's book review
we did on our site you may get more of our intended flavor
here. I quote her most often on a new meme of both 'local autonomy, and global
cohesion.'

Pirsig basically tells us we should nourish local Value interrelationships.

(In a sense, that is a definition of 'love.' Scott Peck in his book, The Road
Less Traveled
, says "Love is the will to extend oneself for the purpose of
nourishing one's own and another's spiritual growth." I think Pirsig would
agree.)

Others will do things with which we disagree, but they have a Quality right to
their own local Values.

Ultimately, if we have to act outside our sphere of influence, I see two memes at
play: both cooperate and defend.

(Note: 'sphere' of influence is SOM jargon. We are cohesively and ubiquitously
connected to all of nature, unbounded by any sphere's 'objective' surface.)

Large organizations tell us we must act as groups to assert ourselves in others'
contexts. I disagree. You can do more good by setting a local example. Those
around you will imitate, if your example is 'good.' Your goodness will grow,
evolve. That is reality, not churches, unions, corporations, states, and
countries imposing their culture(s) on others.

That's as deep and fundamental as I can get. Look at your body. All atoms, etc.
cooperate and defend, yet act locally autonomous and globally cohesively, ditto
your biological molecules. It is only when we get to social and intellectual
levels do we see artificial structures which try to play-substitute nature's role
of global cohesion. I think it is a learning process. We must learn that nature
does take care of us, if we just learn to do our own thing. (Many say this view
is naive. Perhaps.)

Doug.

When you stop and think about it long enough, we are still a very dumb, cruel
race of sentient beings. We spend billions of dollars on movies and
entertainment while people are dying of hunger and diseases that don't have
enough research money. To most of us, the quest for money is far more important
than caring about the very lives of our fellow human beings. If we don't put
money first, we are dumb in the eyes of society, it seems. Is something wrong
with this picture?

Jon,

Pursuit of money for money's sake and to make your pile of 'chips' bigger is
folly, IMO.

Pursuit of what you love and using that to nourish your local Value
interrelationships is 'better.' But that can generate enormous money flow too.
Then comes a test. What to do?

If you really love what you are doing, you will continue despite new wealth.
Wealth is not your love. You may find yourself helping others pursue what they
love. Yet that may be folly too, because others must do their own thing. Help
is welfare. Help like that can establish dependent behavior which opposes
self-pursuit of one's own interests and local benefits.

All, just my opinion,

Doug.

Money we spend day after day on the most expensive cars could go toward feeding
a hungry child, but nobody wants to hear that.

Jon,

Who decides this? You? Vicar? Priest? Friend? Neighborhood? City? Church?
State? Country? Who decides?

I do not believe you can do this without creating a new control bureaucracy which
will become more 'evil' than any original 'good' you intended. That is what we
have today. But it will not survive, IMO, because I think control bureaucracies
are not evolutionarily stable strategies. Even within capitalism we see their
continual rise and fall.

I believe freedom-Quality nourishes good's own survival. By freedom-Quality I
mean, 'both local autonomy and global-ubiquitous cohesion.'

Doug.

Sympathy is too often met with sarcasm from others. "Let them help themselves,"
seems the attitude. We seem to need a REASON to help people, a REASON that will
be appreciated by society.

Jon,

Pirsig tells us society is not as highly evolved as intellect. Your 'reason'
would have to be appreciated by all patterns of Value at all levels. Pirsig
tells us a 'Church of Reason,' based on Subject-Object Metaphysics is THE
problem!

I only know one pattern which works in general regardless of where it occurs:
both individual autonomy with global-ubiquitous cohesion. Global cohesion is
natural and intrinsic, so we do not have to provide that in any way. All we need
to do is work on our local Value interrelationships. (Just as we are doing now.
And think about that...If we just do this, what we are doing now, we can affect
our whole globe with new memes, new schemas for living.)

Doug.

Too many of us don't want to lend a helping hand if we don't get a medal or
clapped on the back. Sorry I'm rambling but politics isn't going to help
people, we need to make big internal changes on an individual level. We should
not look upon our fellow humans as COMPETITORS...the whole competition things
is a BIG defect in our way of thinking, i believe, but SO much of our society
is built around it. I know I am being naive, but do you agree with any of what
I'm saying?

Jon,

Most of us are reared in what Pirsig calls Subject-Object Metaphysics, SOM. It
is Aristotelian culture, Greek culture.

It splits everything: good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, up vs. down, left vs.
right, hot vs. cold, fast vs. slow. It teaches us to evaluate everything based
on dichotomous decisions. It is binary thinking.

One outcome is we view life as a dichotomy too. We get one life, we live, then
we die, and that's it. Life vs. death. This is SOM ontology.

MoQ-quantum ontology says this [following, below] loop iterates endlessly, forever:

Loop:
1. becoming (transition from pure Quality)
2. growing
3. being
4. diminishing
5. unbecoming (transition to pure Quality)
Repeat loop

MoQ-quantum ontology says we do not 'die.' It says life/death is not a SOM
dichotomy! What SOM calls death is a transition back to pure Quality. What SOM
calls birth is a transition from pure Quality to what we all see as patterns of
Value.

You may verify this in your own body now, as you read this. Are you alive or
dead now? SOMites always answer, "Alive!" And they think you are stupid for
asking such a dumb question anyway.

MoQ tells us you may only answer one way: "Yes!" And MoQ is correct, because of
biological apoptosis. I.e., cell death. Cells in you are born (arise from pure
Quality) and die (demise to pure Quality) continuously. About every 170 days,
you get a whole new Jon. All of your cells are replaced about twice a year. You
ARE both living and dying. Now scale cells up to 'you.' Think of you as part of
a much larger living organism. My whole description scales, both up and down.
'Atoms' do similar things. 'Planets' do similar things. Supernovae do similar
things. All on different 'space-time' scales.

I follow MoQ-quantum ontology. I discarded SOM ontology long ago. I think it is
naive. I think SOM is passé. Dump SOM.

SOM and MoQ are dramatically different. You must study Pirsig's works if you
want to begin to grasp this new ontology. (There are other ways too.)

So you see, Jon, I agree with some of what you say, but I disagree too.

I think you will accomplish more if you focus on local Value interrelationships.

In a larger reality frame of MoQ's ontology, 'accomplishing more' may not
manifest its goodness in 'your' current life iteration, however. But you are
part of ALL, so that should be less of a concern if you cease viewing yourself as
an 'individual' without cohesion to ALL.

Nature isn't just evolving you for 'better,' nature is evolving her multiverse
for 'better.' Humans are quite insignificant viewed in nature's larger frame.

All, just my opinion.

Mtty, Jon,

Doug

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/


"Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better
world."

By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' Bantam
paperback.



7 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Putting Good First
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:08:17 EDT
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug

Thanks for your letter. I agree with most of what you say. Yes, to start
"programs" of helping people (such as welfare) dependency can develop, no
doubt. What I meant was that more people, IMO, should be more willing to
offer help to their fellow humans on an individual level, despite any
"official government programs." I think if we all did this, disease and
hunger could easily be wiped off the face of the earth within a year. I know
that is an old platitude, but IMO it's true. Sometimes the simple, kind act
of offering a sympathetic ear to listen to a troubled person can be the
difference between life and death. Sympathy seems to get a bad rap these
days. And sympathy, IMO, is very high Quality.

I have read Lila and ZMM a few times over the years, but I by no means
consider myself an expert on the MOQ. I have two questions for you.
Number one, is there any aspect of either book you disagree with, or
think is lacking something?

Number two, does this stuff ever make you feel like you're gonna go nuts?
Sometimes these deep questions can be dangerous to ponder, and can result in
what happened to Pirsig after his traumatic experience at the University of
Chicago. I know at times I have just had to shut all the philosophy books and
set them aside for a while and give my brain a rest, feeling dynamic insanity
nudging at my mind from all the questions, lol. As Pirsig said in one of his
books, it would take a lifetime to study all the philosophy books ever
written, two lifetimes in fact. It can't be done, can it?

Jon



8 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Putting Good First
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:36:04 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hello Jon,

See my responses embedded below -

Jon wrote:

Hi Doug

Thanks for your letter. I agree with most of what you say. Yes, to start
"programs" of helping people (such as welfare) dependency can develop, no
doubt. What I meant was that more people, IMO, should be more willing to offer
help to their fellow humans on an individual level, despite any "official
government programs." I think if we all did this, disease and hunger could
easily be wiped off the face of the earth within a year. I know that is an old
platitude, but IMO it's true. Sometimes the simple, kind act of offering a
sympathetic ear to listen to a troubled person can be the difference between
life and death. Sympathy seems to get a bad rap these days. And sympathy, IMO,
is very high Quality.

Jon,

I agree with what you say above.

Doug.

I have read Lila and ZMM a few times over the years, but I by no means
consider myself an expert on the MOQ. I have two questions for you.
Number one, is there any aspect of either book you disagree with, or think
is lacking something?

Jon,

I think this is perhaps a most interesting question one may ask about Pirsig. It
is a question which has bothered me much.

One reason you see me pursuing quantum science and Eastern culture on our site is
that I am looking for affirmation of Pirsig's ideas-memes.

Honestly, I find almost full affirmation of his work in quantum science and
Eastern cultures. By affirmation I mean things like Pirsig's Quality Event being
a near identical analogue to quantum 'measurement.' Even more interesting is
neither MoQ nor quantum science can tell exactly 'where' [measurements-QEs]
occur. This, to me, is just more affirmation. ('Whereness,' i.e., locus is an artifact
of classical thought, similar to separation, isolation, reduction, induction,
deduction, etc. We can, from an MoQ perspective, say something similar about
'whenness.')

However, I do have some reservations. I think these issues are nontrivial
philosophically, but I can list some issues which are provocative, at least to
me:

  1. Pirsig says flatly that DQ is undefinable. I see SQ as DQ which has latched
    into actuality. Isn't SQ 'partially' defining DQ?
  2. Nowhere does Pirsig discuss SQ's return to DQ. (Most philosophers and
    scientists ignore this aspect of ontology.) This is an ontological issue.
    Classical ontology focuses on 'being.' I think others share my personal ontology
    of 'becoming, growing, being, diminishing, unbecoming' — all of this in a loop
    as I described. These five steps occur in SQ. We do not know what happens in DQ
    between our 'lives' as depicted by my loop. Physics pursues this 'problem.'

    Our last sentence is actually an uncertainty. What Doug meant when he wrote
    that sentence six years ago is that physics of quantum chromo dynamics pursues
    an ontology of TBCSUD1 quark becoming. We show this in our Generation III
    Quantum Reality Loop
    (a quantonic m¤daling of reality) graphic. Physics calls
    specialty area "QCD."

    Actually classical physics tries its best to ignore this issue. Quantum physics
    demands that we pay close and extreme attention to it.

    Doug should have said, "quantum physics pursues this problem."

    Doug - 23Jan2006.

    1Top, Bottom, Charmed, Strange, Up, Down. TBCS represent a quantum real
    ontology's face of now isot emergence. UD quarks are codonic quantum~comstituents
    of both protons and neutrons. Study text at our Quantonics Fuzzons to Fermion Ontology
    to grasp essence of QCD ontology. Also see our 2004 TQS News on Quantonics'
    hermeneutics of QCD.

    QCD is about quantum interrelationshipings among nucleons (evolved from quarks (fermions) and gluons (bosons)) and electrons.

    QED is about quantum interrelationshipings among electrons (fermions) and photons (bosons).

    For more on QCD Google Search "QCD Made Simple"+Wilczek


    Pirsig and some Eastern cultures say, "Don't waste your time." I think this is a
    major issue.


    4Oct2000 note:

    Those of you extremely interested in human ontology should consider seeing a movie which we recently recommended to Pirsig. It is titled Beyond Death. It is an A&E video made for TV. It is a year 2000 documentary which we find fascinating and very akin both MoQ and quantum and Eastern culture analogues of MoQ. You can order it at www.AandE.com. We have other movie suggestions on this topic too. Ask for them here:

    To contact Quantonics write to or call:

    Doug Renselle
    Quantonics, Inc.
    1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368
    Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
    USA
    1-317-THOUGHT

    (Quantonics, Inc. and The Quantonics Society are unaffiliated A&E.)

    :end note.

  3. MoQ for all its greatness (I mean that) for some odd reason does not contain
    within it mechanisms to make understanding it easier. I think one reason is it
    depicts 'reality' well, and reality is nontrivial. I think Pirsig is so far
    ahead of his time, lesser humans have problems with his works similar to a manner
    they did with Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc. When you compare
    Pirsig's MoQ to many classical philosophies, MoQ is so far above them... One
    almost perceives Pirsig as a Neo sapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens' successor. Clearly
    both DQ & SQ work together to evolve higher forms. Our replacement is imminent,
    so perhaps MoQ is foundation for that new plateau.
  4. Less of a problem, but something which I think affects how John Q. Dipstick
    perceives MoQ is its 'coldness.' I think Pirsig's personality is 'cold' and
    reflects in his work.
  5. What would Pirsig say about morality of abortion?

  6. On March 4, 2004 Beth and Doug were having a conversation regarding Pirsig's ZMM and Lila writings re: dialectic and rhetoric.

    That discussion spawned another question. We k~now that CTMs use dialectic. We k~now that QTMs use quantum rhetoric. We k~now that Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle view(ed) dialectical 'Truth' above rhetorical Good. We k~now that MoQ and Quantonics view Good above 'Truth.'

    Next, we k~now then that dialectic 'denies' rhetoric as a valid 'tool' for reasoning.

    Question: Does rhetoric 'deny' dialectic as a valid 'tool' for reasoning? And what would Pirsig answer?

    Aræ thæræ g¤¤d ræhs¤ns f¤r quantum~rhet¤rihc t¤ quantum~n¤t 'deny' dialectic? Why? Why n¤t?

    To help you answer those apparently esoteric and esegetic questions, see Doug's take on 'classical-dialectic' vis-à-vis quantum~rhet¤rihc and how they 'treat' individuals and societies.

Those are big issues which bother me. I think there may be others, but they do
not come to mind just now.

Please note that his antagonists use classical philosophy to beat up on MoQ.
They, IMO, are transparently inept. (Galen Strawson, et al.)

Doug.

Number two, does this stuff ever make you feel like you're gonna go nuts?
Sometimes these deep questions can be dangerous to ponder, and can result in
what happened to Pirsig after his traumatic experience at the University of
Chicago. I know at times I have just had to shut all the philosophy books and
set them aside for a while and give my brain a rest, feeling dynamic insanity
nudging at my mind from all the questions, lol. As Pirsig said in one of his
books, it would take a lifetime to study all the philosophy books ever written,
two lifetimes in fact. It can't be done, can it?

Jon,

"...go nuts?" Ha, ha, ha.

Two things: when it gets that bad, take a break. And...confusion always precedes
breakthroughs. Illumination-enlightenment happens after much diligence. Our brains
depend upon deep quantum processes to cohere memes. It takes time, and our
brains won't turn our light bulbs on until we have provided adequate information.
Diligence, patience, contemplation, meditation, etc. Read Poincaré, Einstein, et al.

Jon, I think Pirsig gave us a clue on your second question. He told us to pursue
what we love. A classical approach is to jam SQ, even old antique philosophy,
into our minds (that is just one big problem with public education today).
Learning, real learning, allows individual autonomy. Rote learning by
instruction is classical exclusive static quality (evil). Now, given that, there
is some static stuff which we must capture and there are many alternate ways to
do that.

PBS just had a 2 hour special on Einstein. His great mind developed (partly)
because he insisted on his own personal intellectual freedom. Sidis was almost
identical. Pirsig tells us he needed that too. I only made real progress when I
stopped every other (societal pressured, "seek THE dream," bull busy work and)
mundane activity and focused on my personal interests, concepts I love.

Society is static quality which works against, "both individual autonomy and
global-ubiquitous cohesion." Sometimes we have to tell society to shove it.
Sidis did. Julius Eichel did. Einstein did. Pirsig did. Our list of heroes,
many of them, told stuffed shirts to shove it. Not a bad plan. :) (But note:
I have been called, "A stuffed shirt." :)

Your "danger in pondering" is an old classical idea. Think about it. What does
it do? It keeps all SOMites in their little SOM box. It is 'control.' All
bureaucracies focus on keeping society, "In THE box."

MoQ says memes are unlimited. Possibilities are unlimited. Truths are
unlimited. Pursue them with vigor, and tell all classical John Q. Dipsticks to
buzz off. MoQ says get out of SOM-hell's box. Enjoy a larger, awe inspiring,
multiversal reality!

Many truths to you, Jon,

Doug.

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/


"Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better
world."

By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' Bantam
paperback.



9 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Question
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 19:47:57 EST
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug

Jon here. I have a question about Pirsig's book Lila. Near the end he talks
about the origin of the word 'aretê.'

In ZMM, he says that the word aretê has been erroneously translated as
'virtue' when it in fact means 'excellence' (a synonym for Quality). But in
Lila he says that perhaps virtue was indeed the correct translation; this
kind of disturbed me, because doesn't this just demolish Pirsig's theory
about the Sophists? I know that this is ultimately irrelevant to the MoQ, but
was Pirsig wrong about what he said about the Sophists in the closing
chapters of ZMM? Was he wrong about aretê?

Thanks and happy new year

Jon



10 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Question
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 10:53:17 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hey Jon!

Good to hear from you! Happy 3rd Millennium!

Don't mean to oversimplify here, but Pirsig (I think) sees virtue as a static descriptor of "moral
excellence, or moral aretê." Notice how that fits with his position that nature IS moral because
nature's incremental, tentative judgments (ontological SQ) are iteratively becoming 'better/more
good/more excellent.'

In Lila, Pirsig approached with great vigor Quality's moral essence. SOM's good versus evil,
based upon SOM's dichon(subject, object), puts us back in that inversion we spoke of back in
September: truth over value vis-à-vis value over truth. Dichon(good, evil) is a platypus similar to
dichon(freedom, confinement), dichon(effect, cause), etc.

Now on your sophism question, I need more input. How do you see Pirsig's evolved view of
'virtue' as demolishing what he said earlier about Sophists in ZMM?

And Sophism is not irrelevant to MoQ as I see it. What do you see him being 'wrong' about?
Please say more.

Jon, we want to use our (your/my) dialogue from 1999 on our site. Do you have a problem with
that? If you prefer, we can just show my side of our dialogue, but it would be more instructive to
newbies to see your original text, unaltered. Also, if you agree, do you want any other, additional
information shown about you?

Your questions are 'excellent.' Our best to you and yours for Millennium III.

Mtty,

Doug.

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/


SOMland

"That utopian paradice where truepers rule over the bad goods."

by Doug Renselle, 10May1998.



11 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Question
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 00:36:43 EST
From: FlameProof@aol.com
To: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug

I don't know where in Lila that Pirsig says virtue is a static descriptor of
moral excellence. Perhaps he implies it rather than says it? I can't recall
Pirsig ever saying anything positive about the word "virtue".

But, if Pirsig indeed has an evolved view of virtue, then perhaps this
doesn't demolish what he says about the Sophists in ZMM. I hope this is the
case.

In ZMM, Pirsig "sees the light" when he uncovers the apparent fact that aretê
has been mistranslated as virtue all these many years when it really means
excellence (Quality). At this point Pirsig claims that everything fell into
place. Everything now fit. Aretê was Quality.

Do you find it somewhat troubling that Pirsig makes all of these major
decisions on the basis of reading a single (obscure?) paperback book, H. D.
F. Kitto's The Greeks? I know that it can be overwhelming to be hit with
such an utter blast of insight, but didn't Pirsig accept Kitto's assumptions
rather hastily?

Chapters 29 and 30 of ZMM were very intriguing. Pirsig made heroes of the
Sophists, who have been seen basically as villains for many centuries. I
found myself rooting for Pirsig to finally set the record straight on these
ancient teachers of Good. Teachers of Quality. Virtue and ritual, Pirsig
makes very clear, are very much in opposition to his Quality.

This is why I was so devastated to read page 435 of Lila (paperback), when he
says that perhaps the Sophists were indeed teachers of virtue and not
excellence. I thought to myself "No!" But Pirsig had already formed the MoQ
by this point in the book, so the position of the Sophists in history didn't
really matter anymore. Did it? It was a letdown on a purely emotional level;
my heroic view of the Sophists was apparently a false view, according to this
new information. But the MoQ was undamaged by this. I held out hope for aretê
and the Sophists in the pages immediately following 435, but Pirsig seems to
close the door on the subject at page 437 when he writes, "It answered the
question of why aretê meant ritual. Rta also meant ritual. But unlike the
Greeks, the Hindus <some snipped> had paid enormous attention to the conflict
between ritual and freedom." From here Pirsig goes on to discuss the word
dharma but nothing else is mentioned about aretê or the Sophists or the Greeks
(if memory serves me correctly; it's been a while since I read the book cover
to cover).

It felt like Pirsig was making, as quickly as possible, the painful
admission that he was wrong about the Sophists. That's what it felt like to
me; I hope I'm wrong. Pirsig even says something about wanting to sweep the
entire matter "under the carpet" at first, on page 435. This could all be the
result of the hasty conclusions [he] formed after reading Kitto's book
(nowhere in ZMM does it imply Pirsig adequately attempted to verify the
material in Kitto's book). Include Pirsig's admitted misinterpretation of the
Greek meaning of the word Phaedrus, and one begins seriously question all of
Pirsig's understanding of Ancient Greece.

I am a huge fan of Pirsig and hope my conclusions are wrong. What am I
missing here?

Jon

PS feel free to use any of my emails to you on your site, Doug.



12 of 12 — Acronyms used in these emails.

Subject: Re: Question
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 11:59:54 -0500
From: Doug Renselle; 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Suite 18, #368, Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730; 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization: Quantonics
To: FlameProof@aol.com

Hello Jon,

Jon, unsure you have seen this on our site, but a definition
of philosophy is philo (love of) sophy (sophism). :)

See my remarks embedded below - (Your stuff is in quotes.)

You wrote:

"Hi Doug,"

"I don't know where in Lila that Pirsig says virtue is a
static descriptor of moral excellence. Perhaps he implies it
rather than says it? I can't recall Pirsig ever saying
anything positive about the word 'virtue.'"

Jon,

You are correct. Pirsig did not say those words, exactly as I
did. SQ is static quality. So 'virtue' as a word is SQ. A
dictionary definition of 'virtue' in today's terms is 'moral
excellence.' SQ words may be perceived SOMitically as
objective, individuate, isolable, etc. MoQitically, Pirsig
intends for us to perceive SQ words as Quality, i.e.,
commingling DQ and other SQ. Those are two distinct
views of any word. Pirsig talks about both of those views.

See these paragraphs from chapter 30 of Lila:

"The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you
do not free yourself from static patterns by fighting them
with other contrary static patterns. That is sometimes called
"bad karma chasing its tail." You free yourself from static
patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them
with such proficiency that they become an unconscious part of
your nature. You get so used to them you completely forget
them and they are gone. There in the center of the most
monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the Dynamic
freedom is found.

"Phædrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as
long as the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of
Dynamic Quality, a sign-post which allows socially
pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The danger
has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are
mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to
destroy the Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to
preserve."

His last paragraph is an epiphany! View 'virtue' as a
ritualistic pattern offering a static portrayal of DQ. His
definition is both DQ and SQ. His definition allows one to
see both SQ and DQ in that word. To Pirsig
'virtue' quanton(DQ,SQ)! When rituals remove DQ from
that quanton, 'virtue' becomes pure SQ. When DQ is kept in
virtue's quanton, it is preserved!

You may recall that I recommended you re-read his 'Birth of
SOM
' (ZMM, end of chapter 29) many times. I see answers to
your questions there, plus [in] material you reference from Lila in
chapter 30 on rt, rta, and dharma.

This is how I see it. Pirsig felt Sophists practiced aretê
very close to his own MoQ's interpretation of (quantonic)
moral excellence or virtue. But Sophists' successors did
similar things to their aretê as Pirsig describes Hindi doing
to rt and rta, etc., i.e., removing DQ. For Sophists aretê is
both DQ and SQ, not just exclusive SQ. Parmenides, Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle turned Sophists' aretê into pure SQ,
servant not of rhetoric but of dialectic.

Some Hindi did similar things as you may read about in Lila
chapter 30. This is what Pirsig hated: virtue without DQ.

As I see it Pirsig describes two kinds of 'virtue:' That
which fits his MoQ, and that which does not — that which has
been trapped like Luke Skywalker in Jaba's exclusive SQ. One
kind is of Pirsig's first good. Other is evil itself.

Again, I cannot overemphasize very careful reading of ZMM's
chapter 29 end.

He tells us Quality is absolute. He tells us Sophists
practiced an aretê of MoQ's first good. Classical
philosophers hated Sophists' rhetoric (which Phaedrus loves)
and managed to bring Sophism to heel via weak arguments
against them which Phaedrus clarified in his showdown with Herr
Professor at UChic.

Please understand, to uninitiated, MoQ appears to be ethically
relative. That apparition arises to both SOMites and modern
Cultural Relativists. But MoQ says there are many
truths/contexts. In each, local ethics, aesthetics, etc., are
held to high local aretê. So we see many local aretês in
MoQ. And we see them changing because DQ is reality's first
good.

To distinguish MoQ from SOM and CR:

So I return to my earlier statement. Pirsig's good version of
'virtue' is aretê, i.e., righteousness, duty, dharma, and
moral excellence all commingling his first good, DQ. Take DQ
away, and his bad version of 'virtue' arises as exclusive SQ.

Hope that helps.

Doug.

"But, if Pirsig indeed has an evolved view of virtue, then
perhaps this doesn't demolish what he says about the Sophists
in ZMM. I hope this is the case."

Jon,

If you agree with what I wrote above and your rereading of
those two chapters in ZMM and Lila, then you may see it does
not demolish what he says. To him, Sophists were already
doing MoQ. Sophists were already practicing MoQ/Quality.

Somewhere in ZMM, he wonders what Earth would be like today
had Sophists won over SOM. We may have discovered quantum
science a few hundred years earlier. :)

Doug.

"In ZMM, Pirsig "sees the light" when he uncovers the apparent
fact that aretê has been mistranslated as virtue all these
many years when it really means excellence (Quality). At this
point Pirsig claims that everything fell into place.
Everything now fit. aretê was Quality."

Jon,

See if you can concur with my conclusion Pirsig had two kinds
of 'virtue' in mind.

Doug.

"Do you find it somewhat troubling that Pirsig makes all of
these major decisions on the basis of reading a single
(obscure?) paperback book, H. D. F. Kitto's The Greeks? I
know that it can be overwhelming to be hit with such an utter
blast of insight, but didn't Pirsig accept Kitto's assumptions
rather hastily?"

Jon,

Forgive my bluntness, but Kitto was not Pirsig's only source!
Just in chapter 30 of Lila alone, he mentions multiple
sources. Plus, he read nearly all classical sources and
dialogues (E.g., in prep. for his showdown with his
professor.).

Doug.

"Chapters 29 and 30 of ZMM were very intriguing. Pirsig made
heroes of the Sophists, who have been seen basically as
villains for many centuries. I found myself rooting for Pirsig
to finally set the record straight on these ancient teachers
of Good. Teachers of Quality. Virtue and ritual, Pirsig makes
very clear, are very much in opposition to his Quality."

Jon,

I agree with your last sentence if you are speaking of
Pirsig's exclusive SQ version of 'virtue' which he juxtaposes
as in opposition to MoQ.

Doug.

"This is why I was so devastated to read page 435 of Lila
(paperback), when he says that perhaps the Sophists were
indeed teachers of virtue and not excellence. I thought to
myself "No!" But Pirsig had already formed the MoQ by this
point in the book, so the position of the Sophists in history
didn't really matter anymore. Did it? It was a letdown on a
purely emotional level; my heroic view of the Sophists was
apparently a false view, according to this new information.
But the MoQ was undamaged by this. I held out hope for aretê
and the Sophists in the pages immediately following 435, but
Pirsig seems to close the door on the subject at page 437 when
he writes "It answered the question of why aretê meant ritual.
Rta also meant ritual. But unlike the Greeks, the Hindus <some
snipped> had paid enormous attention to the conflict between
ritual and freedom." From here Pirsig goes on to discuss the
word dharma but nothing else is mentioned about aretê or the
Sophists or the Greeks (if memory serves me correctly; it's
been a while since I read the book cover to cover)."

Jon,

You should reread that paragraph which starts, "Digging
back..." [p. 433/468 of Lila, Bantam paperback] There you will
see Pirsig distinguish SQ's Victorian 'virtue' vis-à-vis MoQ's
DQ-SQ Sophist 'virtue.'

Doug.

"It felt like Pirsig was making, as quickly as possible, the
painful admission that he was wrong about the Sophists. That's
what it felt like to me; I hope I'm wrong. Pirsig even says
something about wanting to sweep the entire matter "under the
carpet" at first, on page 435. This could all be the result of
the hasty conclusions [he] formed after reading Kitto's book
(nowhere in ZMM does it imply Pirsig adequately attempted to
verify the material in Kitto's book). Include Pirsig's
admitted misinterpretation of the Greek meaning of the word
Phaedrus, and one begins [to] seriously question all of Pirsig's
understanding of Ancient Greece."

Jon,

Could be, but I seriously doubt that. I too have reread both
his books and his SODV paper multiple times. You appear to
garner a different sense than I.

Here is a bottom line: MoQ almost perfectly aligns quantum
science!

When I personally use MoQ to characterize physical phenomena,
I find my answers so good and so close to what quantum
physicists [describe] that I am astounded. I am astounded because
I have no formal training in quantum physics. I am self-taught. But
then I could be just misleading myself.

Pirsig is human, and as a Homo sapiens he too makes mistakes.
Compared to his antecedents, he is so far above them, in my
opinion, there is literally no comparison. In retrospect,
both Newton and Einstein look a tad learning-disabled — and
you must keep in mind their philosophical mentors were mostly
SOMites!

Doug.

"I am a huge fan of Pirsig and hope my conclusions are wrong.
What am I missing here?"

Jon,

If you still note something missing, just say so. (Keep in
mind I am not RMP! I am only a student of his meager, i.e.,
few, works!)

It helped me to realize Pirsig's works are not locally
absolute. They are more like a complex fabric woven of
many dimensions and threads. One may not yank all of his
sentences, individually, out of their local contexts and
expect to grasp his overall meaning. His contexts all
commingle DQ and other SQ just as they should.

When one acknowledges Pirsig's self reclusion in his own MoQ,
one is open to more 'light.'

Mtty, Jon,

Doug.

Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/


SOMland

"That utopian paradice where truepers rule over the bad
goods."

by Doug Renselle, 10May1998.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2000-2010 — Rev. 22-23Aug2008  PDR — Created 5Jan2000  PDR
(11Feb2000 rev - Correct typos.)
(11Mar2000 rev - Correct typos.)
(7Aug2000 rev - Add link '..other problems' to newer Problematic Pirsigean Memes page.)
(5Oct2000 rev - Add movie suggestion to email #8.)
(6Oct2000 rev - Add anchor to dialog 11.)
(26Nov2000 rev - Correct 'Her Prof.' to 'Herr Prof.' in dialog 12.)
(10Sep2001 rev - Add anchor at email number 9 which commences "Virtues" topic. Add link to MoQ CR & SOM comparison table.)
(6Nov2001 rev - Add link to quotes from Lila, Chapter 30.)
(12Jul2002 rev - Add anchor to dialogue 10, 2Jan2000 for AH Technical Dialogue ref.)
(28Sep2003 rev - Add important Local Value aside to email #6.)
(13Oct2003 rev - Repair QELR of classical terms in case 3 of our Local Value email #6 table.)
(2Jan2004 rev - Update Local Value aside table.)
(1Mar2004 rev - Reset legacy red text and add 'quantum respect' link in #6.)
(4Mar2004 rev - Add 'apoptosis' link to acronym 'OEDC' in #6. Add 'abortion' link to #8. Add red text question 6 to #8.)
(21Nov2004 rev - Alter some colors and reset legacy red text.)
(8Dec2005 rev - Adjust colors.)
(23Jan2006 rev - Add QCD remarks under "Physics pursues this...")
(9May2006 rev - Adjust colors slightly. Reset legacy red text.)
(7Jan2007 rev - Adjust all contact information re: Doug.)
(11Jan2008 rev - Add 'Sophists Practice Arete' link to Classical vav Quantum Recommended Reading page under our Gaffney review.)
(22-23Aug2008 rev - Add 'Good Knocks Trut on its Ass' anchor to associated text. Reformat 4-case table.)


Arches