Subject:	perplexed
Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:25:55 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Howdy Doug,

I have just finished reading both ZMM and Lila. I read them quickly as I was initially sceptical but midway through Lila, I realised that a paradigm shift is almost certainly necessary. I now know I need to re-read more thoroughly. I appoligise for sending you such a lengthy email, but I feel that I am at a philosophical standstill that may only be dispelled by a direct answer. I would greatly appreciate your comments.

Here is my position. I've often wrestled with the belief that for anything to exist, it cannot exist outside of experience because its existence would be empty, therefore nothing would be there. Hence, experience is all that exists. By experience I mean consciousness. This seemed a logical necessity but didn't sit well with the current materialistic assumptions.

Experience is driven by the pain/pleasure continuum. There are other types of experience but they are only useful to the extent that they help us to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Pleasure seems to emanate from increased freedom, pain is a result of a reduction in freedom. Increased freedom results from increased intellect (right choice). Greater intellect often leads to greater experience and consciousness.

Would I be correct in making these comparisons? Quality = experience, Value = pain/pleasure continuum, Static Quality = old patterns of intellect? Dynamic quality = part of intellect that searches out new patterns?

So my perception is that quantum particles are minute (smallest possible) degrees of experience. Quantum particles don't exist at all, what we see as material objects are just our representation of experience which is separate from us.

The first time a quantum particle joins other quantum particles to form an atom, it is making a dynamic choice for more freedom, which in this case is a paradigm shift. It is really just a cooperation and a complete or partial merging of experience. This growth continues through organic, social, and finally intellectual stages, as Pirsig categorises it.

The epoch of human evolution involves an enormous quantity of combined experiences (quantum particles) merged to various degrees and cooperating together in various relationships. This massive combined experience has perceptions (to various degrees) of experience that is separate from itself (matter, other humans).

I realise the above view is likely distorted. However, it seems to resolve philosophical and quantum problems as competently as Pirsig's view. So my questions are:

1. How does Pirsig's view differ from the above?
2. What does Pirsig's MoQ resolve that this does not?
3. How is this view wrong?
4. Can they be synthesised?

By the way, congrats on what appears to be a great site Doug. I just hope that soon I will be able to understand it properly.

Thanx,

MJ.

Subject:	Your queries.
Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:10:12 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello MJ!

Thank you for writing to us in Quantonics.

Our response is necessarily long...

Congratulations on your first reading of ZMM and Lila! We have read both multiple times. Each re-read offers new Chautauquas and philosophical, metaphysical, intellectual, etc. growth.

We have spent much time attempting to answer your questions on our web site, but it is huge and stochastic, so it isn't 'easy' for visitors to find their answers quickly.

Let's do two things in this email response:

1. Offer some background and some links for you to pursue;
2. Briefly and incompletely answer your email questions below.

Background:

We are using quantized 'o' (¤) characters in some words below to distinguish some Quantonics terms from their legacy classical analogues.

Quantonics is an amalgam of Pirsig, quantum, Bergson, James, Heisenberg, et al.'s memes and heuristics. So when we answer specific questions regarding Pirsig and his MoQ, our answers may n¤t be 'pure' Pirsig.

A most key meme for any student of Quantonics to grasp is that of reality's included-middle. This meme destroys all possibilities of correctness in classical logics. Why? Classical logics presume reality's middle is excluded. See Aristotle.

Another most key meme is that of absolute change. Quantum reality changes absolutely. We say that like this: reality changes all (complete) and always changes (consistent). "Flux is crux!"

Bergson in his Creative Evolution and his Time and Free Will simplifies our ways of saying those two key memes like this. See our prereview comments on both of those reviews.

Classical thingkers make two self-deluding presumptions:

1) That reality is stable, and
2) That objects in reality are independent.

Other lesser, however very important, memes are: heterogeneity (quantum) vis-à-vis homogeneity (classical); c¤mplementarity (quantum) vis-à-vis complementarity (classical); quality (quantum/Pirsig) vis-à-vis quantity (classical); dynamic/animate (quantum/Pirsig) vis-à-vis static/inanimate/immutable (classical) — these are analogous key memes 1 & 2 above; affectings-outcomings (ensemble quantum choosings) vis-à-vis cause-effect (classical determinism); etc.

If you understand those sets of differences, you are well on your way to grasping fundamentals of Quantonics, Pirsig, Bergson, (William) James, (Irving) Stein, quantum, et al.

There is much more, but let's leave it at that for now.

Links:

Here are more links to investigate and digest as extensions of what we write in this email:

Our September, 2001 QQA
Our How to Become a Student of Quantonics
Our Connections - SOM, Quantum, Sophism
Our August, 2001 QQA
SOM Limitations
What Is Wrong With SOM Logic
Pirsig vis-à-vis Bergson on Homogeneity vis-à-vis Heterogeneity

Again, there is much more, but let's leave it at that for now.

See our responses to your email embedded below -

MJ wrote:

Howdy Doug,

I have just finished reading both ZMM and Lila. I read them quickly as I was initially sceptical but midway through Lila, I realised that a paradigm shift is almost certainly necessary. I now need to re-read more thoroughly. I apologies for sending you such a lengthy email, but I feel that I am at a philosophical standstill that may only be dispelled by a direct answer. I would greatly appreciate your comments.

MJ,

We do not have a single answer. We have many answers. We will help if we are able.

Doug

Here is my position. I've often wrestled with the belief that for anything to exist, it cannot exist outside of experience because its existence would be empty, therefore nothing would be there. Hence, experience is all that exists. By experience I mean consciousness. This seemed a logical necessity but didn't sit well with the current materialistic assumptions.

MJ,

Quantum reality is both actuality and n¤nactuality as quantum, included-middle c¤mplements of one another. Pirsig says it like this: reality is both DQ (n¤nactuality) and SQ (actuality). Their included-middles we call "face of change," "edge of now," "surprise," "direct experience," etc.

Actuality is Direct Experience. Nonactuality animates and mediates Direct Experience.

Quantum n¤nactuality is isoflux (a Quantonics heuristic; see our contrarotating blue dotted circles in our Quantonics Symbols) which is cloaked to all but most diligent scientific investigations. Michelson and Morley called it "ether" and claimed that it does not exist. Later in ~1948 Casimir showed that quantum vacuum flux does 'exist.'

We see your consciousness as quantum experience as a good metaphor. You are right: classicists necessarily see materialistic reality as deterministic. A conscious, heterogeneously choosing quantum reality stamps out classical determinism.

Doug

Experience is driven by the pain/pleasure continuum. There are other types of experience but they are only useful to the extent that they help us to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Pleasure seems to emanate from increased freedom, pain is a result of a reduction in freedom. Increased freedom results from increased intellect (right choice). Greater intellect often leads to greater experience and consciousness.

MJ,

Mostly we agree.

We would say "Greater compenetration of individual actuality with n¤nactuality leads to..."

Doug

Would I be correct in making these comparisons? Quality = experience, Value = pain/pleasure continuum, Static Quality = old patterns of intellect? Dynamic quality = part of intellect that searches out new patterns?

MJ,

Quantum reality is an animate process reality.

As a result Value may not be a continuum, rather it is quantum processings (ensemble everywhere-associative/networked affectings, choosings, outcomings).

Again, following our process analogy, Static Quality is an emergent/demergent process. See AH's OEDC. See our animate quantum ontology.

A very important meme here, which Bergson parlayed, is that process is not analyzable. Classicists presume they can 'stop' (big page; read it!) reality. Quantum reality is unstoppable. Note how words and mathematical symbols 'stop' reality.

Doug

So my perception is that quantum particles are minute (smallest possible) degrees of experience. Quantum particles don't exist at all, what we see as material objects are just our representation of experience which is separate from us.

MJ,

Quantons are probabilistically distributed, everywhere-associative, "quantum waves." This is source and agency of included-middle, quantum c¤mplementarity, and quantum uncertainty.

Quantons exist. Material classical objects do n¤t 'exist.'

Doug

The first time a quantum particle joins other quantum particles to form an atom, it is making a dynamic choice for more freedom, which in this case is a paradigm shift. It is really just a cooperation and a complete or partial merging of experience. This growth continues through organic, social, and finally intellectual stages, as Pirsig categorises it.

MJ,

You appear to be using a classical meme of assembly/manufacturing. See our emerscenture. It is well worth your while to study other coined terms there too.

All quantons follow our/AH's OEDC.

Your "complete/partial" is analogous our quantum c¤mplementary included-middle.

Pirsig's levels, as we see them, evolve: n¤nactuality parthenogenetically invents/emerges inorganics, inorganics invent/emerge biologicals, biologicals invent/emerge societies, societies invent/emerge intellects, etc.

Pirsig's levels are good for teaching basic memes, especially one of ontic process emergence and demergence/immergence.

Doug

The epoch of human evolution involves an enormous quantity of combined experiences (quantum particles) merged to various degrees and cooperating together in various relationships. This massive combined experience has perceptions (to various degrees) of experience that is separate from itself (matter, other humans).

MJ,

We would use "everywhere-associated" in place of your "merged."

We mostly agree.

Doug

I realise the above view is likely distorted. However, it seems to resolve philosophical and quantum problems as competently as Pirsig's view. So my questions are:

1. How does Pirsig's view differ from the above?
2. What does Pirsig's MoQ resolve that this does not?
3. How is this view wrong?
4. Can they be synthesized?

MJ,

Actually, your view is quite good. Congratulations!

Answers to your questions require at least a book.

If you have times for several dialogues we can take specifics and treat them separately. We need to ask you questions, e.g., do you agree with what you have read in our response and in our links above?

Doug

By the way, congrats on what appears to be a great site Doug. I just hope that soon I will be able to understand it properly.

Thanx,

MJ.

MJ,

Thank you MJ! We will help you understand. It is good if you ask one or a few questions each email. That way we can treat islandic memes in terms of your views/beliefs vis-à-vis Pirsig's and Quantonics'.

Your email is superb. Your mind is making great progress.

Best and mtty, MJ,

Doug.

—
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
—
—
"Socrates himself says it is an analogy...Everything is an analogy. But the dialecticians don't know that."

By Robert M. Pirsig, in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,'
pp. 351-2, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.

Subject:	letter of thanks
Date:	Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:28:44 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Hi Doug!

Just writing to thank Quantonics for such an intricate, well thought out reply. You guys are really doing a fantastic job! I'll probably bombard you with future queries. But for now 'slow & steady', looks like I have a lot of HW!!

Thanx again Doug,

MJ

Subject:	ZMM queries
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:34:22 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Howdy Doug!

I would appreciate your help with a couple of my confusions, from ZMM:

Firstly (pp.117-119) Pirsig seems to be inferring that sciences' 'truths' are closer and closer approximations of reality (I agree). Is he also saying that science could have gone in infinite directions, hence its truths could be completely different concerning the same facts?

Secondly, and more crucially, Pirsig states (p.118) "The number of rational hypothesis that can explain any given phenomena is infinite." Can you please give me some examples using facts each with a number of different rational hypotheses.

Comment: This second problem is an example of the constant gaps which are left for the reader to grind away for hours just to connect from sentence to sentence. Pirsig obviously has bridged these gaps himself, over many decades. Maybe these bridges would be too philosophical for a novel, but that's what it is philosophy. The reader would be saved great time and effort if he were able to critically analyse a complete theory. Instead we are given a framework as a guide for us to lay brick on brick as did our mentor. I have tremendous respect for Pirsig's genius and am grateful for his immense creative work. I mention this to you Doug because I assume you would have pondered similar questions back when you were stumbling through the lower regions.

All the best,

MJ

Subject:	Re: ZMM queries
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:51:47 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello MJ!

This is one of two emails. This one treats your queries. Second one treats Pirsig’s text, which you refer, directly.

Thank you for your queries. Thank you for parceling them out in small 'bites.' It is much easier for us to work like that (due our email load, and other activities).

Your (ZMM) pages 117-119 correspond our pages 99-101. We use mostly Bantam paperbacks and we have several copies of Pirsig's 25th anniversary edition. In futures please state chapter number too, so we can stay aligned. Your quote helped, since we had a pattern with which to search.

We got our trusty old, dog-eared version from late 70s out. It has lots of marks and highlighting in those pages you refer.

You must keep in mind that at this point in ZMM, a first time reader who knows little about MoQ has no inkling of what MoQ is about. Pirsig is mostly getting his readers prepared for what is to come by making them comfortable with some basic classical ideas and concepts like truth, fact, hypothesis, science, and so on... Too, he is assisting them in a process of learning to question everything, especially 'truth.' What he is willing to say and accept here is not what he would be willing to say and accept with a peer who fathoms MoQ fairly well. There are several examples which we can refer as we discuss your queries further.

See our comments embedded below -

MJ wrote:

Howdy Doug!

I would appreciate your help with a couple of my confusions, from ZMM: Firstly (pp.117-119) Pirsig seems to be inferring that sciences truths are closer and closer approximations of reality (I agree). Is he also saying that science could have gone in infinite directions, hence its truths could be completely different concerning the same facts?

MJ,

This is what almost everyone in Western culture believes today, i.e., that science makes steady progress in accreting puzzles.

Kuhn showed that this is not so. Classical science is actually quite schizophrenic. It hops from paradigm to paradigm, from disciplinary matrix to disciplinary matrix, etc.

Inside SOM's box, inside classicism's current axiom set (set of beliefs) science makes apparent progress. Mathematics is a great example here. It is fundamentally incapable of describing quantum reality, but it makes apparent progress in developing what it calls "mathematics." Why are maths incapable of describing quantum reality? Because they are wholly objective and radically mechanical. Quantum reality is not a mechanical reality! Read David Bohm.

Science is really like religions. It depends upon what one believes.

We call what Pirsig describes here, "many truths."

Consider how to get from point A to point B on our Earth. (Despite what our Mothers'-In-'Law' say,) How many hypotheses can one develop to describe physically how to get from A to B? Stand facing north. What is right and what is left? Face east. Ditto. Face south. Ditto. Etc. Many truths! Right and left are quantum and physically relative truths. Ditto up and down. True and false. Black and white. Good and evil.

Those dichotomies are classical constructs. Most folk see them as absolutes. But they are n¤t.

Quantum reality goes a little further: instead of treating them like classical dichons, in quantum reality they are quantons. That means their middles are included, plus they are animate in any sense of evolution and quantum emergence. As an example of this, you will hear us say "Truth is an agent of its own change." We could template that as "Up is an agent of its own change." And so on...

And when Pirsig uses a phrase like "rational hypotheses" we have to be very careful. Quantum reality is n¤t classically rational!

As an example of what Pirsig might do with a peer, is his third quote of Einstein after heaping great praise upon him, "Nobody who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system..." (We added this bold red highlight as a back reference from our next email which we are linking back to this statement to qualify a clarification we make there. Doug - 19Feb2003.)

Pirsig did not say so, but his subsequent comments refute what Einstein says here. "Uniquely determines" denies Pirsig's notions of many truths. There are no unique sets of hypotheses and axioms for a theory of any meme! That is Pirsig's whole point. Classical science's method is a deign to feign.

Someone from Betelgeuse or Alpha Centauri would not follow any Earth sentient's method, but their solution and approach would probably offer at least as useful results.

If you have color/taste synaesthesia and I have not, would our individual hypotheses about what makes pepper hot be even remotely similar?

You query, "Is he also saying that science could have gone in infinite directions, hence its truths could be completely different concerning the same facts?"

What do we mean by truth? Do we mean that truth is classically absolute?

In Quantonics we follow Gödel regarding description of "absolute." Classical absolute truth (e.g., a 'proven' hypothesis) means to us,

1. Always states 'the' truth — consistent, and
2. States all truths — complete.

That kind of 'truth' is n¤t accessible to finite intellect. So we have to qualify our answer to your question with that statement.

Let's put 1000 different scientists in 1000 different isolated places and give them all a set of facts. Do you believe that all 1000 would produce identical hypotheses? Modern classical science likes to believe that they would. How? Ideally all scientists are 'trained' to think identically. This is what Kuhn calls "ordinary science." It is a terrible model!

He says what we really need are "extraordinary scientists" none of whom think alike.

It is a bit like being a member of a culture. You must both live by rules and simultaneously be willing to break them. There are always situations where 'truths' fail!

Imagine yourself in flatland attempting to describe what I see living in 3D land. Imagine trying to hear light. Ponder y-our sensory bandwidth limitations in light of that last sentence. If you have better scientific equipment than I have, will both our perspectives of a selected situation be identical? If you can measure light speed, and I can't how can we both arrive at identical conclusions about a situation?

Do you know any two people who, even scientifically trained to do so, think alike?

See if that helps.

Doug

Secondly, and more crucially, Pirsig states (p. 118) "The number of rational hypothesis that can explain any given phenomena is infinite." Can you please give me some examples using facts each with a number of different rational hypotheses.

MJ,

We gave some examples above. See if those help. If not, keep pushing.

Doug.

Comment: This second problem is an example of the constant gaps which are left for the reader to grind away for hours just to connect from sentence to sentence. Pirsig obviously has bridged these gaps himself, over many decades. Maybe these bridges would be too philosophical for a novel, but that's what it is philosophy. The reader would be saved great time and effort if he were able to critically analyse a complete theory. Instead we are given a framework as a guide for us to lay brick on brick as did our mentor. I have tremendous respect for Pirsig's genius and am grateful for his immense creative work. I mention this to you Doug because I assume you would have pondered similar questions back when you were stumbling through the lower regions.

All the best,

MJ

MJ,

Yes, and this is a most valuable effort. Pirsig cannot give us 'the' answers. He has to appeal to our curiosities and urge us to learn for ourselves. We cannot be spoon fed philosophy. He calls that "philosophology." We must learn to do philosophy.

We hope that we are not spoon feeding, rather illuminating your own philosophical pathway.

MJ, five years ago, we were way behind where you are now. That should be encouraging for you.

Doug.
==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
==
==
"On de Broglie's violin: Without a balance twixt both absolute flux and its discord there shall be no harmony."
-
By Doug Renselle, 1Jan2001

Subject:	This is Pirsig's text with our analysis of it.
Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:52:45 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

MJ,

We answered your two queries under a different email which precedes this one.

Text you ask about is "crucial," as you say, so we decided to just make comments on those few pages here. Our last few quoted sentences are most crucial of all.

Here it is with our extracted pp. 99-101 ZMM text with bold text embedded comments:

"There was a passage he had read and repeated to himself so many times it survives intact. It begins:
 

'In the temple of science are many mansions — and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them there.

MJ, here Einstein appears to us to be admitting that reality is heterogeneous — plural. We agree. Classical fundamentalists see reality as a monism. Indeed, Newton's laws, Aristotle's sillygisms, and most of classical science depend upon a monistic reality.

'Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power [hegemony over others]; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, it would be noticeably emptier but there would still be some men of both present and past times left inside — . If the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have existed any more than one can have a wood consisting of nothing but creepers — those who have found favor with the angel — are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other [e.g., omnifferent] than the hosts of the rejected. [Recall our comments in our previous email.]

'What has brought them to the temple — no single answer will cover¹ — escape from everyday life, with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.'

MJ, this quote makes Einstein look good. Much of his other work does less so, e.g., his interrelationships with Niels Bohr, where he acted like a spoilt child.

1 In other words there is no single set of hypotheses for a theory of what brought scientists to the temple. Doug - 19Feb2003

"The passage is from a 1918 speech by a young German scientist named Albert Einstein. So now we know this was pre-mathematical Einstein. Mathematics ruined Einstein's creative thing-king as documented by Dyson and Feynman. We say "thing-king" due Einstein's own classical fundamentalism.

"Phædrus had finished his first year of University science at the age of fifteen. His field was already biochemistry, and he intended to specialize at the interface between the organic and inorganic worlds now known as molecular biology. He didn't think of this as a career for his own personal advancement. He was very young and it was a kind of noble idealistic goal. Here is a clue, MJ. In classical and quantum chemistry, especially biochemistry, quantum reality's included-middle is obvious. No good biochemist even questions this issue. (See Mae-wan Ho's (Open University) the Rainbow and the Worm.) And this explains why we believe that biochemistry will lead our quantum tsunami's progress in Millennium III.

"The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or lover. The daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.

"If Phædrus had entered science for ambitious or utilitarian purposes it might never have occurred to him to ask questions about the nature of a scientific hypothesis as an entity in itself. But he did ask them, and was unsatisfied with the answers. Pirsig is warning us here that we must not blindly accept science, but question it, especially its foundations. When science admits honestly and humbly to its intrinsic uncertainty, its own provisionality, it remains scientific, it keeps its Quality. When scientists blare science's proven absoluteness they become proselytes of a scientific religion and enter a religious domain of homogeneous and monotheistic fantasy. We call latter a "sheigmful deign of feign" whose purpose is societal thus intellectual hegemony. Evidence? Catholicism's centuries of Inquisition, Ireland's Catholic vs. Protestant wars, Christianity's crusades, Mohammed's invasions and declarations of non-Muslims as "Great Satans," etc., ...all in pursuit of inviable, anti-natural, anti-quantum monotheisms. Doug - 19Feb2003.

"The formation of hypotheses is the most mysterious of all the categories of scientific method. Where they come from, no one knows. A person is sitting somewhere, minding his own business, and suddenly...flash!...he understands something he didn't understand before. Until it's tested the hypothesis isn't [tentative, provisional] truth. For the tests aren't its source. Its source is somewhere else. [Our bracketed comment. Doug - 21Feb2003.] Later, MJ, we will come to view "source" as DQ and its animate interrelationships with SQ.

"Einstein had said:  

'Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it — . [And this is man's great mistake! Today, it is sciences' great mistake! Mistake! What mistake? When humankind and science claim their picture is the picture.] He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience — . The supreme task — is to arrive at those universal elementary laws [MJ, you will come to realize that there is no such classical concept as a GUT or ToE! There are no universal 'laws.' 'Laws' like all else in quantum reality evolve.] from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them — .' [And here MJ, Einstein himself offers a subtle warning about 'logic' and 'rational reasoning.' It is incredibly interesting to note how he ignored his own advice. You may wish to see our critical review titled, What is Wrong with EPR.]

"Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for the origin of scientific knowledge. [Note of interest: these are words which Henri Louis Bergson uses to describe reality. Bergson anticipated nearly all of Pirsig's conclusions in ZMM and Lila's MoQ. Both together, Pirsig and Bergson, we consider our unacknowledged mentors.]

"A lesser scientist than Einstein might have said, “But scientific knowledge comes from nature. [E.g., Plato said,] Nature provides the [discoverable] hypotheses.” But Einstein understood that nature does not. Nature provides only experimental data. [Nature is not mechanical. This is one of Bergson's major points. Logic, and formal reason only work on a [pre-existing, discoverable] mechanical reality. Can you see MJ how phrases like "classical mechanics," "quantum mechanics," "matrix mechanics," and "wave mechanics," etc., are fundamentally problematic?]

"A lesser mind might then have said, “Well then, man provides the hypotheses.” But Einstein denied this too. “Nobody,” he said, “who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles.” [And we agree, but doubt Einstein would agree with how we see it. Hypotheses, like truths, and all else in quantum reality, evolve. They are agents of their own change. Quantonics has evolved over our last ~five years. You are evolving now. Our solar system is evolving now. Quantum flux is crux! Semper flux! Clarification: Yes! We agree with what Einstein says starting at "...in spite of the fact..." We already, in our previous email, stated that we disagree with Einstein's views of "uniqueness determining the theoretical system." We would rewrite that sentence, "Nobody who has really gone into these issues will deny that in practice the world of phenomena n¤nuniquely offers potential for theoretical system hermeneutics, while respecting 'the' fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles." Now we can agree with said sentence in its entirety. Perhaps we need some reinforcement: Werner Karl Heisenberg made an analogous point like this, "On the other hand, the scientific concepts are idealizations; they are derived from experience obtained by refined experimental tools, and are precisely defined through axioms and definitions. Only through these precise definitions is it possible to connect the concepts with a mathematical scheme and to derive mathematically the infinite variety of possible phenomena in this field. But through this process of idealization and precise definition the immediate connection with reality is lost." In other words, classical 'normal science' intentionally eliminates Pirsigean Dynamic Quality from their models of reality! See Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy 'The Revolution in Modern Science' Page 200 of 213 total pages (no index). MJ, you and other students of Quantonics may choose to see how our quantons, at their most rudimentary least quantum action emerscenture, retain and require an anihmatæ EIMA quantum c¤mplementarity with reality. Doug - 19Feb2003.]

"Phædrus’ break occurred when, as a result of laboratory experience, he became interested in hypotheses as entities in themselves. He had noticed again and again in his lab work that what might seem to be the hardest part of scientific work, thinking up the hypotheses, was invariably the easiest. [There are unlimited static views of any observable. Just move from one location to another, and notice how your observable 'changes.' Most scientists claim that observables hold still. Indeed, this is one of their requirements for observation, but we know better. Observables evolve, just like all else in quantum reality. And even more interesting: quantum reality shows us that we affect observables and observables affect us! As we move (and even if we, apparently, do not move), observables and we are evolving!] The act of formally [this is a classical problematic: formality is radical mechanism] writing everything down precisely and clearly seemed to suggest them. As he was testing hypothesis number one by experimental method a flood of other hypotheses would come to mind, and as he was testing these, some more came to mind, and as he was testing these, still more came to mind until it became painfully evident that as he continued testing hypotheses and eliminating them or confirming them their number did not decrease. It actually increased as he went along. [Today, Pirsig's personal experiences are vindicated. There are unlimited interpretations of quantum reality, MJ. We offer only 12 as examples on our site.]

"At first he found it amusing. He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson’s law that “The number of rational [rational is another classical, formal problematic, MJ — you may now see why we are doing our Quantum English Language Remediation efforts] hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite.” It pleased him never to run out of hypotheses. Even when his experimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it long enough, sure enough, another hypothesis would come along. And it always did. It was only months after he had coined the law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or benefits of it. (This note was added by Doug about five years ago: p. 100 ZMM pb.: We choose to interpret Pirsig's coined law as, "Many truths.")

"If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method! [We agree, wholeheartedly! Science, classical and relativistic and classical versions of quantum science, are in deep, deep trouble, MJ.]

"If the purpose of scientific method [view 'method' as radical/formal mechanism] is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge. [MJ, what we call scientific hubris and arrogance is that science actually believes that it can choose just one, monistic, good for all time, immutable hypothesis! Then they go around and hegemonously impose it on everyone else using their "disciplinary matrix." Einstein did this when he told Niels Bohr that Bohr's complementarity was "subjective" and thus "absurd." That is 'scientific' discipline! Science and classical English language (and most other Western languages) drive out subjectivity, and thus drive out quantum reality, and thus drive out MoQ's Quality.] See our Quantonics English Language Problematics, and our Quantonics English Language Remediation.

"About this Einstein had said, 'Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest,' and let it go at that. But to Phædrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase “at any given moment” really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! [This is one of Pirsig's most brilliant observations. And today, it holds. Truth and all other Static Quality are agents of their own change, under an edict for semper flux mediation from DQ.]

"But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations [Kuhnian paradigms] of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else. See our review of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

"He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal condition. It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity of scientific effort. Thus the scientific truths of the twentieth century seem to have a much shorter life-span than those of the last century because scientific activity is now much greater. If, in the next century, scientific activity increases tenfold, then the life expectancy of any scientific truth can be expected to drop to perhaps one-tenth as long as now. What shortens the life-span of the existing truth is the volume of hypotheses offered to replace it; the more the hypotheses, the shorter the time span of the truth. And what seems to be causing the number of hypotheses to grow in recent decades seems to be nothing other than scientific method itself. [MJ this is what is Good about science. It is an agent of its own change, whether it likes it or not. Science, like all else in reality, is provisional — tentative!] The more you look, the more you see. Instead of selecting one truth from a multitude you are increasing the multitude. What this means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth through the application of scientific method, you actually do not move toward it at all. You move away from it! It is your application of scientific method that is causing it to change! [Agree!]

"What Phædrus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly characteristic of the history of science, which has been swept under the carpet for years. The predicted results of scientific enquiry and the actual results of scientific enquiry are diametrically opposed here, and no one seems to pay too much attention to the fact. The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science has done exactly the opposite. [DQ at work!] Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones ["Many truths."]. The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself. And what Phædrus saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen everywhere in the technological world today. Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos. [Phædrus saw quantum reality, but did not recognize it as such. Over 20 years later, in 1995 Pirsig gave his SODV paper in Brussels, Belgium on this topic.]

"It's possible now to look back a little and see why it's important to talk about this person in relation to everything that's been said before concerning the division between classic and romantic realities and the irreconcilability of the two. Unlike the multitude of romantics who are disturbed about the chaotic changes science and technology force upon the human spirit, Phædrus, with his scientifically trained classic mind, was able to do more than just wring his hands with dismay, or run away, or condemn the whole situation broadside without offering any solutions.

"As I've said, he did in the end offer a number of solutions, but the problem was so deep and so formidable and complex that no one really understood the gravity of what he was resolving, and so failed to understand or misunderstood what he said. [MJ, this is what Quantonics is all about. We, in a sense, are continuing this work, but we have, where Phædrus did not, an Internet with many virtual apostles like you.]

"The cause of our current social crises, he would have said, is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself. And until this genetic defect is cleared, the crises will continue. Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world. Since the Renaissance these modes have worked. As long as the need for food, clothing and shelter is dominant they will continue to work. But now that for huge masses of people these needs no longer overwhelm everything else, the whole structure of reason, handed down to us from ancient times, is no longer adequate. It begins to be seen for what it really is...emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty. That, today, is where it is at, and will continue to be at for a long time to come."

MJ, your choice of these pages shows you are on many pathways to understanding. Those sentences in that last paragraph are as important as any others in human history. Quantonics is on a crusade to help clear that "genetic defect." We highlighted key words for your further philosophical pondering.

That ends our quoting of that segment of ZMM with which you are having "confusions" and "difficulties." Hope our commentings help.

Best,

Doug.
==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
==
==
"On de Broglie's violin: Without a balance twixt both absolute flux and its discord there shall be no harmony."
-
By Doug Renselle, 1Jan2001

Subject:	accreting science?
Date:	Wed, 04 Dec 2002 01:00:01 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Howdy again Doug!

Thanx for such an in depth reply to my last query. You respond in a day, then I take months. I've taken such time because I wanted to read the 3 books you recommended before I responded. Unfortunately, due to many commitments at this time of year, I've had to put them on hold. I will necessarily take months to do your recommended reading and reply to your in depth emails anyway, I suppose this is the way you arrange it? In fact, I am astounded by the speed and thoroughness with which you respond - you must be tapping 'reserve energy'. I imagine you would have quite an email load. At any rate, I greatly appreciate your efforts, and that's why I wish to do the reading before responding so you don't have to regurgitate what is in a book.

Thinking through your response and 50 pgs of Kuhn put to rest most of my confusions. The example of the 1000 isolated scientists is particularly revealing.

I now understand that science can at any point go in infinite directions, and have different truths concerning the same observables. This is a revelation to me. Doug, I was previously under the illusion that the many truths ran parallel to science and logic, and branched out from their meta-physics only (below the initial axioms, our first split of reality). I didn't realise that they interweaved through every scientific hypothesis. I falsely presumed Pirsig to be saying that science and maths were boxed-off areas which approximated a set of classical truths corresponding to their chosen axioms. Wow, you blew that box to pieces!

I will respond more fully once I read Bohm, Kuhn, and Ho. However, there is one point I hope you can clarify. You deny that science involves "steady progress in accreting puzzles". I agree, it is actually quite schizophrenic, but it still seems to be 2 steps forward 1 step back, hence, an overall accretion towards reality. Isn't this proven by our greater power of manipulating reality?

If you are saying that we are creating higher value analogies of (what we call) material reality, yet the quality of life overall is decreasing, then I agree. However, science still would be making progress in accreting puzzles, though only in a specific field (which may not have any relationship to overall quality at present).

"Spoon feeding"...not my style...I suffer the opposite problem - I often expend time and energy 'hunting and gathering' when that very same item is right there on the shelf of the grocery store (library, etc).

A Merry Xmas to you Doug,

MJ.

Subject:	Re: accreting science?
Date:	Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:01:58 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello again MJ!

Good to hear from you after only three months... :)

Understand your need to study. We are that way too.

David Bohm's ~1951 Quantum Theory is a classic. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is too. Mae-wan Ho's 1993 the Rainbow and the Worm is becoming a classic.

We are taking a three month break in Oregon, then Arizona. We check in with our ISP a couple times each week, so our responses may be delayed relative to what you are accustomed.

We believe that using QTMs helps our students tap into reserve energy, almost without realizing they are doing so. As soon as you become totally aware that you are a quantum being, and not a classically objective 'machine,' you will evolve toward being vastly more productive and creative.

You obviously have a leg up! You didn't and currently do not reject our works out of hand. Most classically trained folk, especially Ph.D's., call us "charlatans" and "deconstructionists."

See more comments embedded below —

MJ wrote:

Howdy again Doug!

Thanx for such an in depth reply to my last query. You respond in a day, then I take months. I've taken such time because I wanted to read the 3 books you recommended before I responded. Unfortunately, due to many commitments at this time of year, I've had to put them on hold. I will necessarily take months to do your recommended reading and reply to your in depth emails anyway, I suppose this is the way you arrange it? In fact, I am astounded by the speed and thoroughness with which you respond - you must be tapping 'reserve energy'. I imagine you would have quite an email load. At any rate, I greatly appreciate your efforts, and that's why I wish to do the reading before responding so you don't have to regurgitate what is in a book.

Thinking through your response and 50 pgs of Kuhn put to rest most of my confusions. The example of the 1000 isolated scientists is particularly revealing.

I now understand that science can at any point go in infinite directions, and have different truths concerning the same observables. This is a revelation to me. Doug, I was previously under the illusion that the many truths ran parallel to science and logic, and branched out from their meta-physics only (below the initial axioms, our first split of reality). I didn't realise that they interweaved through every scientific hypothesis. I falsely presumed Pirsig to be saying that science and maths were boxed-off areas which approximated a set of classical truths corresponding to their chosen axioms. Wow, you blew that box to pieces!

MJ,

What is crucial to grasp here is that a set of axioms (e.g., Newton's classical mechanics) when adhered stringently, puts one in a BOX.

Quantum reality has n¤ ideally lisr boxes.

Doug.

I will respond more fully once I read Bohm, Kuhn, and Ho. However, there is one point I hope you can clarify. You deny that science involves "steady progress in accreting puzzles". I agree, it is actually quite schizophrenic, but it still seems to be 2 steps forward 1 step back, hence, an overall accretion towards reality. Isn't this proven by our greater power of manipulating reality?  

MJ,

See our review of Kuhn's SoSR on our top, index page. Read about how classical science's 'relative' sequential paradigm shifts when viewed at once appear "schizophrenic."

It is also good to realize that quantum reality's vast pluralisms and heterogeneities appear as paradice and massive schizophrenia when viewed from within any BOX which claims that its set of axioms are the set of axioms.

Doug.

If you are saying that we are creating higher value analogies of (what we call) material reality, yet the quality of life overall is decreasing, then I agree. However, science still would be making progress in accreting puzzles, though only in a specific field (which may not have any relationship to overall quality at present).  

MJ,

To us, what hurts world cultures today is a rather common dialectic world view. Nearly all folk default to thing-king either/or and excluded-middle and inanimate/stable.

In our view, then, CTMs allow one culture to absolutely, either/or judge another culture. For example some Muslims view USA as a "Great Satan." Some fundamentalist Christians just want to go and eliminate all Muslims because they are "against us," and we expect people to be EITHER "for us" OR "against us." We thus can justify eliminating Muslims as, in general, against us.

We believe CTMs are source and agent of global hate.

QTMs deny all that classical bilge.

When we adopt a full quantum philosophy, metaphysics, science, culture, etc., our progress will be massively greater and of hugely greater benefit to all humankind. Classical science's accretion of puzzles will look relatively naïve.

We send our best to you and yours for 2002-2003 holidays.

Kind regards,

Doug.

"Spoon feeding"...not my style...I suffer the opposite problem - I often expend time and energy 'hunting and gathering' when that very same item is right there on the shelf of the grocery store (library, etc).

A Merry Xmas to you Doug,

MJ.

==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
==
"The idea of the future, pregnant with an infinity of possibilities, is thus more fruitful than the future itself..." Henri Louis Bergson, Creative Evolution, p. 10.

Subject:	sciences' boxes
Date:	Sat, 07 Dec 2002 01:23:06 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Howdy Doug,

I'm from Sydney, Australia.

My character is particularly unsuited to schooling systems. I've been well trained in the Master/slave method - and my slave is a defiant rebel. In school my slave side learnt well that learning is a chore, so I've progressed only minorly in 'stops and starts' since then (years wasted!). Beginning this year I have begun to realise that I do have a strong thirst for knowledge, but only as a democracy (no slave labour). So I am learning to let go and DQ moves toward things and away, no preset goals, no perceivable future.

I don't claim any particular purchase on DQ. I'm just highlighting one of the many government sponsored DQ prisons available, one in which I have been a regular patron.

Anyway, you're right SOM and all its component parts are boxed in, on their initial assumptions, and hence separate from reality. I implicitly still understood this but my visual analogy erroneously omitted it whilst adding further knowledge?! ( a box is best).

For my mind organisation I'll just say some possibilities (probably the last in this area) and you can comment how you like.

Empiricism is like a box, within SOM's box, also inside logic's box, but with the observation part outside pure logic. Empiricism (science) is filled with many, less stable boxes being constantly created and destroyed — in this way you could view every hypothesis as stable/unstable axiom sets (bottom of boxes). This is because every hypothesis helps to limit the following hypotheses (Readers note: This is not what Pirsig says in ZMM. Pirsig says hypotheses generate more hypotheses and their growth is unlimited. Doug - 19Feb2003. If MJ is saying, instead what SOM actually does, then his words have semantic value in SOM.).

But even with SOM's axioms + Occam's razor science can still go in many different directions. SoSR shows this: a particular paradigm (axiom set) is chosen when there are many that can do the job, other paradigms can always solve problems that the chosen one cannot.

Do you think that even maths could have gone in other directions, to a more limited degree? The order of invention would have an affect on the theories that follow. Maths are just defining patterns within/between our number system &/or spatial axioms. So one pattern being discovered may blind us to other patterns that don't mould well with it (it may slur over another pattern and cause it to be less prominent). At any rate we would be looking for matching patterns thereafter. If the other pattern were discovered first, then, in this case, it would change the course of mathematics.

All the best,

MJ.

Subject:	Re: sciences' boxes
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:37:09 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello MJ!

Sorry for our delay in responding. Trying to mostly play while having a tad of time for some site work and correspondence.

Sounds as though you have a very rewarding life. Yet you still have free will and can make your own life-directing choices. We are similar. Tried societal prison. Hated it a la Harry Haller in Hesse's Steppenwolf. Left it relatively late in life. Now we are free, but we found that freedom is a kind of prison of its own. But this prison is one we enjoy and it gives us so many rewards.

See comments embedded below -

MJ wrote:

Howdy Doug,

I'm from Sydney, Australia.

My character is particularly unsuited to schooling systems. I've been well trained in the Master/slave method - and my slave is a defiant rebel. In school my slave side learnt well that learning is a chore, so I've progressed only minorly in 'stops and starts' since then (years wasted!). Beginning this year I have begun to realise that I do have a strong thirst for knowledge, but only as a democracy (no slave labour). So I am learning to let go and DQ moves toward things and away, no preset goals, no perceivable future.

I don't claim any particular purchase on DQ. I'm just highlighting one of the many government sponsored DQ prisons available, one in which I have been a regular patron.

Anyway, you're right SOM and all its component parts are boxed in, on their initial assumptions, and hence separate from reality. I implicitly still understood this but my visual analogy erroneously omitted it whilst adding further knowledge?! ( a box is best).

For my mind organisation I'll just say some possibilities (probably the last in this area) and you can comment how you like.

Empiricism is like a box, within SOM's box, also inside logic's box, but with the observation part outside pure logic. Empiricism (science) is filled with many, less stable boxes being constantly created and destroyed — in this way you could view every hypothesis as stable/unstable axiom sets (bottom of boxes). This is because every hypothesis helps to limit the following hypotheses.

But even with SOM's axioms + Occam's razor science can still go in many different directions. SoSR shows this: a particular paradigm (axiom set) is chosen when there are many that can do the job, other paradigms can always solve problems that the chosen one cannot.

MJ,

We agree.

Doug

Do you think that even maths could have gone in other directions, to a more limited degree?  

MJ,

Yes, definitely! Locally consistent axiom sets are unlimited in possibilities.

Doug

The order of invention would have an affect on the theories that follow. Maths are just defining patterns within/between our number system &/or spatial axioms. So one pattern being discovered may blind us to other patterns that don't mould well with it (it may slur over another pattern and cause it to be less prominent). At any rate we would be looking for matching patterns there-after. If the other pattern were discovered first, then, in this case, it would change the course of mathematics.

MJ,

Any set of putatives based upon experience will always have some extent of agreement with Nature. We call each set a paradigm. In quantum reality, we believe there is a 'digm' above SOM and CR which is more like a metadigm, and above that is a more encompassing 'digm' which we in Quantonics call a "pragmadigm."

Is it a final 'digm?' Clearly not. When do we arrive? Possibly 'never.'

Have some nice holidays with you and yours,

Doug.

All the best,

MJ

==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
==
"The idea of the future, pregnant with an infinity of possibilities, is thus more fruitful than the future itself..." Henri Louis Bergson, Creative Evolution, p. 10.

Subject:	SVO animation
Date:	Sat, 21 Dec 2002 01:27:43 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Howdy Dougs,

Been reading Hermann Hesse, does this account for your personal plurality? (we)

You asked for what is wrong with the SVO transitioning animation:

I'll give it a shot. I think it should begin with SOM written at the bottom of the screen, & O over S (O/S) animation. Then change to CR middle of screen, animation inverted (S/O). Finally change to 'Quantum Reality' top of screen (since of higher value) and commingle etc. But certainly, final animation should be S/O since subject aspect of Quality is of higher value than object aspect.

I'm not sure but should Quality replace Value. I saw on your site: "Value is static patterns of Quality". I thought Value was also in DQ?

P.S- So you agreed with the paragraph in my last mail concerning master/slave dichotomy loosening as an aspect of quantum being ? (of course only one of many aspects). That which SOM calls interest or enthusiasm. If you disagree with any part of an email don't hesitate to tear it apart. Everything I say is tentative and I find constructive criticism of very high value.

Happy Holi's,

MJ.

Subject:	Re: SVO animation
Date:	Sun, 22 Dec 2002 17:09:39 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello MJ!

Good to hear from you.

See embedded remarks below -

MJ wrote:

Howdy Dougs,

Been reading Hermann Hesse (Steppenwolf), does this account for your personal plurality? (we)

MJ,

Interesting that you should make that affine nexus.

You are really good! Few folk can achieve such a height of understanding of depth of fathoming.

Hesse's Magister Ludi (Master of Games, where ludi in Latin means "games" et al., AKA The Glass Bead Game) is about his life-serial schizophrenia. We intend, that is, a sort of large scale Kuhnian digmatic schizophrenia. But in Steppenwolf, Hess speaks eloquently re: multiple intra-life personalities.

Our life experiences show us that both of those hold as genuine perspectives of quantum nature.

And so...yes, we chose to acknowledge quantum nature with our humble "we."

Many authors refer intra-life schizophrenia. Few fathom its quantum extra-life hermeneutics and heuristics.

Doug

You asked for what is wrong with the SVO transitioning animation: I'll give it a shot. I think it should begin with SOM written at the bottom of the screen, & O over S (O/S) animation. Then change to CR middle of screen, animation inverted (S/O). Finally change to 'Quantum Reality' top of screen (since of higher value) and commingle etc. But certainly, final animation should be S/O since subject aspect of Quality is of higher value than object aspect. I'm not sure but should Quality replace Value? I saw on your site: "Value is static patterns of Quality". I thought Value was also in DQ?

MJ,

Again, this is very good.

Here is an email we wrote recently to a student at University of Wisconsin, USA, who said he just couldn't get it. Note how closely your metaphor aligns ours:

"Hello Chris,

"Thank you for trying. Yoda had it right in our view when he said 'There is no
try, just do.'

"You just did! :)

"Actually, if you study both ZMM and Lila, you will learn that Pirsig tells us
that philosophically SOM dialectically places Object over Subject. We call
this 'SOM's deign of feign.'

"Pirsig's MoQ inverts that hierarchy. Not only that but he includes S & O as
one (Quantonics infers, quantum included-middle-) class of reality called
Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs). So, simply, Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality
says Subject over Object and both are quantum-merged into Value.

"What is wrong is when our animation shows that merger and inclusion in
ubiquitous Value, we accidentally showed O over S. It should be S over O.

"You are first to receive an email saying this in public.

"Congratulations!

"Best,

"Doug.
"==========

"Chris Noflame wrote:

"> It's late I'm tired and I'm just starting to read ZMM for the second time,
> after 2 years away from it. But I would have to say it's at least partially
> representative of the reciprocating assembly, blue disc-crankshaft, red
> disk-piston. If the rest of the book was in my head more recently, I'd have
> a better answer for you. 'Course I could be way off... and just annoying
> you!
>
> Chris Noflame
> Noflames allowed"

MJ, isn't that amazing, how close you came. Actually, you got it right! And you added some flavor which most others simply would not grasp.

Quality is both DQ and SQ together. DQ cann¤t emerge and express itself without SQ. DQ is dynamic (in Quantonics, "n¤nactual," to be expressed) Value. SQ is stindyanic (in Quantonics, "actual" expressed) Value. SQ though is never severable (by Ockham or by SOM's knife) from DQ. That is why we show our quanton(DQ,SQ) without a space after comma. That demonstrates quantum reality's included-middle, its n¤nseverable-middle. SOM assumes all middles are severed and thus Aristotle's excluded-middle reigns. Quality issi Value issi quanton(DQ,SQ).

Doug

P.S- So you agreed with the paragraph in my last mail concerning master/slave dichotomy loosening as an aspect of quantum being? (of course only one of many aspects). That which SOM calls interest or enthusiasm. If you disagree with any part of an email don't hesitate to tear it apart. Everything I say is tentative and I find constructive criticism of very high value.

MJ,

We would not use your terminology. To us, we are all quanton(masters,slaves). It is a quantum included-middle both/and. It is quantum-n¤t a classical excluded-middle either/or: dichon(masters, slaves).

Perhaps we are missing your point. If we are, offer clarification.

Ocean here is gorgeous. It is rough, with about 3 meter waves (yeah, we know, Australia in some places has 30-50 meter waves :). Good for you!

Best to you, MJ,

Doug(ings).

PS - QELR requires "present participle" plurality to describe animate quantum processes. If we add EIMA as an adjectival clause, we pick up quantum included-middlings which are both quantum l¤cally and quantum n¤nl¤cally associative. That pretty much describes quantum reality. :)
===

Happy Holi's,

MJ.

==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
==
==
"Coupled cycles are the ultimate wisdom of nature."

By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, in 'the Rainbow and the Worm,' p. 49, World Scientific, 1993, paperback.

Subject:	Quanton(thought,action)
Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2003 05:00:55 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Hello Doug!

I assume the "Howdy" mnemonic is no longer of service. I already let slip that I'm not really from the Wild West anyhow. "G'day mate" might have been more CR.

I'm trying to suture the schism SOM makes between thought and action, this split is of particularly low value. This is of course a process. I only have a rough schema of what I am actually doing to slowly include the middle, as the process is mostly intuitive and partly thought. (I am presently mostly concerned with the action of continuing to learn, as thought tells me this is of high value).

Rough schema: Following emotions of what I wish to do, rather than forcing toward a static future goal. Yet to follow instantaneous emotions is sometimes a reversion to biological or social patterns. It seems to help to slow down and intellectually peruse possible actions and consequences before letting go into action. This procedure often closer aligns emotions and thoughts. But, like a democracy, biological or social or any patterns if strong can win the vote. In a previous email I called it flowing with DQ, moving towards and away from things. (This above loose schema needs clarification, it is hard to work with as is). [Our bold green.]

The higher the value of the intellectual schema of this particular process, the more ably and quickly this fissure will fuse. Quantonics, for me, now and for some time to come is focused around this fissure. It has been the largest deficit in my SOMitic character and hence across this fissure awaits potentially the strongest bridge to quantum being. A pivotal chess move, you might say, a la Steppenwolf.

As a working example, a linked case, most students know that S & O are EIMA, yet in our everyday lives we maintain a solid ESQ dichon(S, O).

I know all quantum beings must progressively bridge both these gaps. It is probably the corner stone of Quantonics. I'm guessing you have intimate animate experience of both these gaps Quanton(gapings,compenetratings). Can you suggest a pragma-action schema (or renovation) of higher value than I have mentioned? I know it is Quanton(individual,general), but your path will still illuminate much of mine. (Our bold of MJ's first sentence. Makes us think of Robert Plant's three words in a famous Led Zeppelin song, "Where's the bridge?" It is what Henri Louis Bergson intends when he says, "...think being directly." It is Pirsig's "Direct Experience." It is Fritjof Capra's "interpenetration." It is Prof. William James' "compenetration." It is Eugen Herrigel's "we are in It and It is in us." It is our MoQ Reality Loops I and II.
Doug - 20Feb2003.)

In order to fuse the S/O split, is simply thinking about Quanton(S,O) best? (a type of meditation I guess). If so, which main concepts, visualisations should I think issi be?

Doug, I considered you my intellectual mentor, but the more epiphanies I have, the more I realise the enormity of this revolution you are ramifying. I used to compare it with Newton's or Aristotle's intellectual revolutions, but there is little in our world that will not be substantially altered. The biological (hunger, shelter, etc), social, intellectual, and spiritual ramifications are huge. You are swiftly transforming into my guru.

An epiphanic new year to you Doug,

MJ.

P.S.- I know this is a big ask, I expect these questions may be tough, being mostly constructed from personal introspection. Take your time, I've just commenced a 3 week vacation.
P.P.S.- I do try to inquire in small chunks. I presume my question will take a couple of lines, but somehow I manage to write an essay, attempting to clarify it. :-)

Subject:	Re: Quanton(thought,action)
Date:	Sat, 25 Jan 2003 18:32:32 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello MJ!

Thank you for taking times to write.

Thank you even more for offering us such Quality in your correspondence to us. By that we do not mean your flattering remarks! What we intend is your apparent I-cubed grasp of memes surrounding Quality (quantum Quality). Several remarks you make here show great progress from a couple of months ago.

In our personal journey we have learned, so far, that all this — is a journey: Pirsig calls it "a Chautauqua." Too, it appears that this journey is without end as described in Joseph Knecht's poem Stages from Hermann Hesse's Magister Ludi. In Magister Ludi Knecht became Turu who became Josephus who became Dasa and so on...

Some may find that discouraging. Most want to "arrive." But note how arrival is akin Bergson's physically closed and J. C. Maxwellian-conservative radical finalism, which is just another classical either/or based upon that damned S-O split. Classicists' Bergsonian radical mechanism requires putative stoppability (e.g., cinematographic frames) in both space and time (where classical time is naught but a space rate proxy as identified by Bergson, Poincaré, James, Zeno of Elea, et al.).

For us, though, nævær arriving is Valhalla. Our journey is too much fun. Our intrinsically sutured oneness with Nature is joy.

Caveat: we share your problems too (as implicit contrastings in our Chautauqua)! We find SOM irritating and distorting our everyday lives. Almost everyone we know is a SOMite (except for a few folk like you who are trying to learn how to leave SOM's box). But without SOM, how would we be able to see how CR is bettering from SOM and MoQ/quantum is bettering from CR? Without ills of SOM's cinematographic state-icities, how would we be able to omnistinguish quantum absolute animacies' betterings? Without classical languages' problematics how might we invent quantum-remediated languages' betterings? As Dr. Scott M. Peck told us so vividly in his The Road Less Traveled, "...life is problems...when we get on with solving them and enjoying our processings of doing that...there are no problems." We take latter to imply, regardless our challenges, we can always make our situation comparatively better. And that is all we need do: "Just pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start all over again."

There is an entire book of philosophical discussion surrounding Pirsig's notion of better as natural quantum morality. Pirsig only scratched its surface in Lila. If we might offer a mantra for Millennium III, we might say something like, "Always seek quantum better." But, forbid any possibility that we might attempt that as SOMites or CRites! Why? As Nietzsche, et al., have found SOM and CR treat betterings and morality dialectically. And this wholly inept and incompetent act is what creates philosophical hell on Earth.

There is a message for us here: we have to be capable of managing multiple both contexts and comtexts in our daily lives. This in itself can appear as Aristotelian categorical acts of SOM (and CR). If we view 'things' as objective, then indeed they are categorical acts of SOM and CR. You have already learned that if we intentionally view physial (n¤t physical) Nature as quantons, we have a much-needed crutch to help us view Nature n¤t as 'things' but as absolute quantum-processing phenomena and memes. A clue to when we are habitually tapping into reserve energy is when we are habitually managing multiple contexts (CR and SOM) and comtexts (MoQ/quantum/Quantonic) as we converse and read and write. When we are continuously, real time capable of putting every meme, word, idea, concept, percept, thought, etc. simultaneously in SOM, CR, and MoQ con(m)texts our quantum stage associations superabound. Now, as an example, ponder doing that in each of five omniffering languages. We can do that! We are capable of that! (Note to students: MJ thought our "We can do that" meant "Dougings can do that." Dougings can do that with a small vocabulary of both Latin, Greek, French, and German mixed with English. What we intend here is that humans as self-aware quantum beings are "can learn to do it" capable of "doing that." 28Jan2004.)

That quanton crutch helps so much that we look for more crutches. Quantonics offers many of these, and on our web site most are necessarily in comtexts of Doug's own personal experiences with life, lives, and livings:

• plural-present-participle QELR, EIMA vis-à-vis EEMD, and BAWAM vis-à-vis EOOO,
• Aristotle's sillygisms,
• Newton's naught,
• SOM's HyperBoole,
• CR's objective pluralism,
• Quantonics' extensions to quantum science,
• Quantonics' extensions to Pirsig's MoQ,
• Quantonics critiques of EPR, et al.,
• Quantonics' metaphors and memes for Zeno's paradice,
• and so on...

Our hermeneutics of metaphor as meta (change/quantum_flux) phor (bearer, carrier), and meme as a quantonic and thus anihmatæ and evolving idea/concept (which Platonic ideas and concepts cannot do, due their implicit Bergsonian S-O independence and stability; Plato believed in, "...an independent reality of Ideas, or Forms, as the immutable archetypes of all temporal phenomena and as the only guarantee of ethical standards and of objective scientific knowledge. Virtue consists in the harmony of the human soul with the universe of Ideas, which assure order, intelligence, and pattern to a world in constant flux..." Columbia's Concise Encyclopedia. Clearly and forthrightly Plato's philosophy is, like Aristotle's, pogromatically anti-quantum. As you can see, and as Pirsig taught us so well, Plato imposes dialectic on ethics and virtue. Pirsig, Nietzsche, et al., see this as Western cultures' greatest of all philosophical flaws. In Quantonics, we wholly agree. It is what we mean when we say, "SOM," "CR," "and classicism.").

All of these are intended, to help those who daily seek countless n¤vel epiphanies, to do so and to share their joy with others.

What amazes us, MJ, is that some folk like you appear to I-cubed grasp Quantonics/MoQ/quantum aspects of living, but others simply cannot fathom memes outside of SOM and its routinely classical thing-king. Why? Plato told his followers that dialectic is good. They, and most inheritors believed him.

But Plato, Parmenides, Aristotle, and their ilk were incorrect. Hamann, Bergson, Pirsig, Geertz, and modern quantum philosophy show how incorrect their views are.

You may recall our 1999 email to Dan Glover regarding his personal difficulties saying and writing words without feeling that he is always creating exclusive SQ when he does so.

We just restored a link to that email under our How to Tap into Reserve Energy page. Recently, we rediscovered that page (it was no longer linked actively from Quantonics), and now we have restored a link to it. Someone found it in our legacy HTML on our ISP via a Google search.

In that email, we quote Eugen Herrigel who describes his own personal trials and tribulations while attempting to learn 'bow and arrow' art under a Zen Master. (See Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery.) Too, in that email we compare four items of how Glover sees 'things' vis-à-vis how Quantonics sees memes. Glover, as far as we know, was not able to rise above SOM's dialectics. Perhaps more recently he has. We hope so.

More recently, you see our struggles with others who appear incapable of "tearing down SOM's wall."

That wall is so obvious to most folk that to argue against it is foolhardy. Modern scientists call those who argue against SOM's wall (Sheffer stroke; binary alternative denial; contradiction; etc.) "deconstructionists, insane, fools, charlatans, illogical, nonsensical, unreasonable, absurd, etc." Einstein used such language to denigrate Bohr's Copenhagen quantum theory as "subjective."

But Quality/Nature issi subjective! It is affective! It is qualitative! It only appears 'objective,' and 'causal-effective.'

Seeing that is what we call an epiphany. Understanding it takes years of work. Hopefully Quantonics shortens that effort somewhat. And y-our dialogue is an analogue of whether Quantonics actually can shorten that effort. In one case, we feel rather confident that we shortened efforts from roughly 3-5 years down to about six months. However, that individual possesses great breadth and depth of knowledge in many philosophies.

Even more troubling is how we can (it is possible for us to) see that epiphany only intellectually, and accept it only intellectually, and we can still be in SOM's box.

Living it is another meme.

Our greatest epiphany arises when we understand what Herrigel, Pirsig, et al., mean when they say "We are in It and It is in us." When we allow It to extend who we are into n¤vel quantum ontologies which extend our heuristic, imaginative, and creative powers almost unfathomably. Another way to say this is "We are in Reserve Energy and Reserve Energy is in us."

Our best example of this, as real Reserve Energy, is Pirsig's answer to us when we asked him, "Who wrote ZMM and Lila?" His answer, simplified, "Both I and It wrote ZMM and Lila."

MJ, what you see on our Quantonics web site was not done by singular Doug. What you see on our web site is work of Us!

Picasso described his painting similarly. (We do not have an exact quote, but) He said something like, "Both I and It painted and sculpted all those works." See that yummy video with Anthony Hopkins as Picasso.

Miles Davis described his trumpet playing similarly, ~"...try to play notes-n¤t."

Quantum artists recognize all qualitative artistic endeavor as quantum Gestalt. Both figure and ground. Both us and It. Quanton(It,us). Quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality). Quantum Gestalt is quantum c¤mplementary.

Our energy, our motivation, our work is an EIMA of both It and us.

Now, another epiphany! That "Us" is in you too MJ. And it is cowithin and coinsides all Nature — everything and every sentience. Partings of you contribute to our endeavors. Partings of us contribute to your endeavors. (Partings) May loom large as epiphany...may tiptoe small as Lorentz' butterfly affect...

What do we think and believe that means for how we live? To us, this is utmost importance. It means Nature is our union. Nature is our commune. Sentients, like humans, need expend little/no energies creating SQ unions and SQ communes in Nature. All we need do is focus on our individual hermeneutics of Nature, while cooperating with our fellow creatures, and defending our memes. When we create artificial institutions to culturally clone stuck thoughts (cultures, mores, Plato's 'virtues,' etc.) among our peers, we violate Nature!

But we are practical too. We realize that what we just described may not be achieved on a large scale on Earth for decades, centuries, even millennia. However, as each of us learns to do what Nature appears, in our limited understanding of her, to ask of us then we move a little closer to that — what appears to us as — Natural, islandic amalgama of quantons.

See our further remarks embedded below, MJ -

MJ wrote:

Hello Doug!

I assume the "Howdy" mnemonic is no longer of service. I already let slip that I'm not really from the Wild West anyhow. "G'day mate" might have been more CR.
 

MJ,

Sounds like Crocodile Dundee! We watch those two movies fairly regularly.

Doug

I'm trying to suture the schism SOM makes between thought and action, this split is of particularly low value. This is of course a process. I only have a rough schema of what I am actually doing to slowly include the middle, as the process is mostly intuitive and partly thought. (I am presently mostly concerned with the action of continuing to learn, as thought tells me this is of high value).

MJ,

Key here, for us, is to anihmatæ our thoughts. If you whistle or play a musical instrument, you know what we mean.

Also, your use of 'process' is con(m)textual. In MoQ, pr¤cess is quantum anihmatæ.

Doug

Rough schema: Following emotions of what I wish to do, rather than forcing toward a static future goal. Yet to follow instantaneous emotions is sometimes a reversion to biological or social patterns. It seems to help to slow down and intellectually peruse possible actions and consequences before letting go into action. This procedure often closer aligns emotions and thoughts. But, like a democracy, biological or social or any patterns if strong can win the vote. In a previous email I called it flowing with DQ, moving towards and away from things. (This above loose schema needs clarification, it is hard to work with as is).

The higher the value of the intellectual schema of this particular process, the more ably and quickly this fissure will fuse. Quantonics, for me, now and for some time to come is focused around this fissure. It has been the largest deficit in my SOMitic character and hence across this fissure awaits potentially the strongest bridge to quantum being.

A pivotal chess move, you might say, a la Steppenwolf.

As a working example, a linked case, most students know that S & O are EIMA, yet in our everyday lives we maintain a solid ESQ dichon(S, O). I know all quantum beings must progressively bridge both these gaps. It is probably the corner stone of Quantonics. I'm guessing you have intimate animate experience of both these gaps Quanton(gapings,compenetratings).

Can you suggest a pragma-action schema (or renovation) of higher value than I have mentioned?

I know it is Quanton(individual,general), but your path will still illuminate much of mine. In order to fuse the S/O split, is simply thinking about Quanton(S,O) best? (a type of meditation I guess).  

MJ,

Here, we need to do a little side excursion on some terms you are using. Let's talk briefly about both individual and general. Classically, 'definitions' of those two terms are, in our Quantonics view, misguided. First, they are thought of intellectually as objective. Individual objects/objectives and general objects/objectives. Individual often means specific: specific objects/objectives. General usually means Platonic (ideal, formal, archetypical) objects/objectives. Notice how Plato's general is a thema/schema of absence of change, what he calls "immutability." But most general in quantum reality is abs¤lute changæ. Now you may see how y-our usages of words in various con(m)texts is highly problematic. Similarly individual. Most specific/individual in classicism is atom/object. Most specific in quantum reality is also most general: quanton(n¤nactuality,some_island_of_actuality). In quantum reality, specificity and genericity are always codependent, EIMA quantum c¤mplements of one another. Specificity may n¤t 'exist' in absence of genericity and genericity may n¤t 'exist' in absence of specificity.

Back to "illumination:"

Our Quantum Tells page is where we try to aggregate everyday illuminations that we know about.

Probably our best examples are: gravity, bosons (and their analogues), probability distributions of all quantons in reality. Latter is easiest to imagine when we think of quantons as waves, then ask ourselves, "Where is a wave?" (It is an exciting epiphany to see how quantum scientists garner this notion in 'wave mechanics.' Further, then to see how they can mathematically force ideal duality of both wave mechanics and matrix (objective/particulate) mechanics. (This is called "Transformation Theory." It is kin of Lorentz 'Invariance.') What is key here is that even in 'classical' quantum 'mechanics,' scientists still have to admit that objects may not have ideal physical locality without quantum uncertainty 'relationships' among those objects' classical 'complements.')

Further examine latter. A good question to ask oneself is, "Where am I?" Answer that question classically first. A classical answer is: MJ's locus = <x, y, z>. In other words, classicists presume that you, MJ, are an object. Then they further assume that you can have a stable Cartesian coordinate location in a stable 3-space 'frame of reference.'

Hidden in that short classical paragraph are enormous philosophical issues. We call them classical "putatives" from Latin putare which usually means "supposition." An example of a hidden supposition in that short paragraph is classical stoppability of reality. Physicists call it "zero momentum." You recognize this as Bergson's classical delusion of stability. We can go on and on here...

Of course in Quantonics, (waving) reality is not stoppable, localable/isolable (i.e., <x,y,z>), separable/reducible (via SOM's knife/wall/mythos), etc.

So a good schema is to self-view one's own 'locus' as macroscopically waving and quantum uncertain, like Zeno's arrow. (An analogue of this schema is one we use in our Quantonic Symbols page (large page, lots of graphics) to show there are no ideal classical 'circles' in quantum reality. Our leisure reading, currently, of Buckminster Fuller's And It Came to Pass - Not to Stay shows that he understood our latter 'circle' example years/decades before we even thought of it.) Modern physicists deny macroscopic quantum uncertainty. Our view is that modern physicists are incorrect on this particular topic. See our recent modifications to our Zeno's Paradice page.

Another schema is to view one's quantum stage as in our multiverses' quantum consciousnesses and our multiverses' quantum consciousnesses in one's quantum stage. Another way to say this is, "permit our minds to compenetrate reserve energy and permit reserve energy to compenetrate our minds." Kefatos and Nadeau's The Conscious Universe hints at this schema; however, they classically disable it by insisting that Niels Bohr's complementarity is "exclusive."

Students of Quantonics can develop quantum schemas for a whole raft of classical illusions/delusions: oneness, zeroness, cause-effect, dichotomy, state, exclusion, monism/homogeneity, stoppability, etc. Key here is to omnifferentiate classical schema and quantum schema. A classical schema is naught more that another classical Church of Reason, a mental detention center. A quantum schema may offer means of escaping that CoR. (Dr. Irving Stein's book, which is a nontrivial read, helped us form our own unique schemas for analyticity, problems of classicism, problems of relativity, etc. If you are interested, read a copy of his The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics. This is one of our most-favored texts. Stein is, most simply put, a genius.)

Perhaps by schema, MJ, you seek a quantum pattern for living. If that is what you seek, then we have to go back to your earlier intuitions to just live for now and allow y-our instincts and intuitions and emotions to guide. In our work, since about 1992 that is what we have done. But as you worry, if we act on emotion alone, we can get ourselves in a lot of difficulty. In that regard, we are almost Hippocratic: do your best, quantum-locally, to do no harm. Onus then, is on you, locally to decide which of your 'actions' may harm others. Too, realize that some harms are useful and constructive. As an example, we believe that SOMites need to be threatened intellectually (not physically) to get them to commence moving from their SOM boxes. Humor can do this as well as any approach, but it can harm what another individual believes. But is that 'harm' an incorrect behavior for us to apply? We think n¤t.

Pirsig counsels 'balance.' We need a schema of balance of his DQ and SQ which looks like this: quanton(DQ,SQ). In Quantonics we call this quantonic balancing act "stindyanics." It is an amalgam of both static-inanimate and dynamic-animate, which you probably are realising just now is an honest description of reality. It is also a good schema for playing any musical instrument.

Let's take a violin. (For us, this is about as good as it gets, so listen-up.) Without a violin's stable frame to hold its strings taut, its strings cannot vibrate and be tuned. Without those strings being both confined (~particle/object) and free (wave/subject) to vibrate, said violin cannot make music. We can extend (scale) our schema to bow, repertoire, then novice/garzone/Maestro, then ensehmble, then orchestra... (Ponder how a novice "harms" listeners with he-r noise while learning to play said violin. Notice how a beginner's bow does "violence" to said instrument. Weigh philosophical meanings of what better means in and during progress from novice, through garzone, to Maestro.) When Maestro plays said violin masterfully without even trying then Maestro is a "Zen Master," a mystical "Samurai Warrior" of violins. Maestro has become quantum coherent by suturing both static-inanimate and dynamic-animate as quantum-one, as a quanton. (Con(m)sider that we have to describe our example's 'wholeness' as animate (and only 'apparently' inanimate), though, which holds at all scales of quantum reality. This was omnifficult for us to see initially, i.e., that Pirsig's Static Quality is animate.)

Something similar happens when a tennis or golf player hits what they call "sweet spot." Rent that movie about Bagger Vance. Read Herrigel's Zen and the Art of Archery. Yes! It is a lot like meditation as other site visitors notice quite often. It is an admission, a heartfelt almost spiritual epiphany of one's own massive, nonlocal, animate inclusion in reality and vice versa.

Doug

If so, which main concepts, visualisations should I think issi be?

MJ,

"Concept" is name for a Platonic classical object. It should only be used in classical contexts. William James' "percept" and "perceptual flux" are closer to what we intend by "quanton."

To list them is easy. To "issi be" them is less so. That is why we call Quantonics "A New Way of Thinking for Millennium III," and "A Phil¤s¤phy amd Scihence ¤f C¤mplementary Interrelati¤nships." MJ, we do not comsider ourselves 'arrived' at (an) "issi be." We are on a journey of approaching it (i.e., some "issi be;" there is n¤ the "issi be").

Our journey is necessary to us based upon our recognitions of massive failures of classical ways of thing-king. Many of our "New Ways of Think-king" were introduced to us by our mentors. We have quantum-extended those and started calling them Richard-Dawkinsian "memes" AKA "quantons."

Let's make a list our main memes for MJ's "issi be" schema (re-ordered, extended in red text, from original email): 

• meme (Dawkins; as a quanton...Quantonics),
• quanton (mimicking The Sciences, Sep/Oct 1997 issue, 'Tiny Doubles,' by Hans Christian von Baeyer, pp. 11-13; subsequent emails with Dr. von Baeyer established Dr. Mario Bunge as original 1978 coiner of "quanton"),
• lisr (Don Howard, 'Holism and Separability,' Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, UND Press, 1989),
• BAWAM, EIMA (neural networking theories; Satinover in his The Quantum Brain),
• anihmacy (abs¤lute quantum—but variable rate—changæ),
• wayvings (Zen/Chan plus Quantonics),
• heter¤geneity (Bergson, Renouvier, James, et al.),
• inclusi¤n,
• interfusi¤n (Bergson),
• c¤mpenetrati¤n (James),
• c¤withinitness (mostly Quantonics with memes from Dana Zohar in her books on Quantum-Self and -Society),
• c¤-inside-nce (Renselle based upon Pirsig's Lila and SODV work, then Quantonics),
• interpenetrati¤n (Capra's The Tao of Physics),
• quantum inclusive c¤mplementarity (Quantonics),
• umcærtainty (Heisenberg, with a Quantonics reality-scaling twist),
• scaling ¤f umcærtainty (Quantonics based upon our own heuristic and hermeneutic fathomings of Zeno of Elea's paradice), amd
• qualitativeness,
• affectiveness,
• subjectiveness,
• openness, (n¤nconservation, p¤sentr¤py with both p¤sitive and nægatihvæ gradients; see OEDC; see MoQ II Reality Loop)
• prevaricativeness, (classical apparition of quantum reality; CTMs predict absolute truth; QTMs expect islandic truthings)
• equivocalness, (classical apparition of quantum reality; CTMs predict absolute truth; QTMs expect islandic truthings)
• paralogism, pragmalogism (temporal heterogeneity, n¤ndistributivity, n¤nfact¤rizability, n¤nc¤mmutativity, n¤nidentity, n¤nreflexivity, n¤ntransitivity, n¤nsymmetry (e.g., Möbius fermions), and this list just goes on and on and on...)
• ensehmble heter¤geneity, (see quanton ensehmble interrelati¤nships)
• pr¤bability distributi¤n (statistical quantum science),
• st¤chasticity,
• phasicity (i.e., absence ¤f classical state),
• quantum indeterminism (quantum ensehmble ~determinism),
• quantum real n¤n-mechanics (David Bohm in his Quantum Theory),
• c¤dependency,
• c¤¤bsfecti¤n (Quantonics, based upon an assumption that quantum reality is intrinsically aware and thus both self- and co-aware),
• unst¤ppability (Zeno of Elea with a Quantonics twist; also embedded here is a notion of real perpetual motion of QED's and QCD's 'building blocks' including photons, electrons, protons and gluons),
• so on...

For each of those, you should be capable of imagining its classical '~complement' and beaucoup problematics associated with each classical 'counterpart.' For each of those, you should be able to imagine self as classically detended by its classical analogue and freed by y-our quantum hermeneutic/heuristic schema's associated "issi be." In any classical 'realm' one can only 'be' stuck. When we enter n¤vel quantonics quantum omniversities we "issi becomings" more free: better. (Classicism begs "Status quo is the way to go." In Quantonics we respond "Stux sux! Flux is crux!" Doug - 20Feb2003.)

What we notice most profoundly about this is how we qualitatively feel before and after. We notice how we feel when we temporarily "go-back" to help SOMites out of their intellectual detention centers. We sense an oppressive, stifling, hegemonous 'excluded-middle,' thence fresh quantum air of "included-middle." They are vastly omnifferent, and latter is so much more incredibly powerful, literally having more quantum staging, energy, and scope than former. (SOMites probably will see this precisely 'opposite' to how we describe it. They are only partially right in our violin example sense of confinement enabling specific freedoms. In quantum reality that violin's abilities to confine are not classical. And that is why classicists refer quantum reality as "oxymoronic," "Murphy," "ironic," and "paradoxical.")

Doug

Doug,

I consider you my intellectual mentor, but the more epiphanies I have, the more I realise the enormity of this revolution you are ramifying. I used to compare it with Newton's or Aristotle's intellectual revolutions, but there is little in our world that will not be substantially altered. The biological (hunger, shelter, etc), social, intellectual, and spiritual ramifications are huge. You are swiftly transforming into my guru.

An epiphanic new year to you Doug,

MJ.

P.S.- I know this is a big ask, I expect these questions may be tough, being mostly constructed from personal introspection. Take your time, I've just commenced a 3 week vacation.

MJ,

It took most of those three weeks.

And y-our work now has only begun... :)

Doug.

P.P.S.- I do try to inquire in small chunks. I presume my question will take a couple of lines, but somehow I manage to write an essay, attempting to clarify it. :-)

==
Doug Renselle
In Quantonics
http://www.quantonics.com/
==
==
"We must become the change we seek." Gandhi

Subject:	Readings
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:32:04 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Hi Doug!

Thank you for such an ephipany packed, well thought-out reply. It's obvious that lots of effort have gone into it. It seems that the bar has been raised, I needed to read it a number of times before getting a good grasp on it.

I expect to be working with this for many future times. There are many further readings to commence, and memes to understand issi be. I shall further inquire on specific sections or other readings, as DQ prompts me. I'm thanking you now, in case it is a while before I respond. In futures I'll just assume you know I have received and am working on it.

It's handy for you to know where I'm at...

Books on your list I've read:

• ZMM (Pirsig)
• Lila (Pirsig)
• SODV (Pirsig — a 20 page paper presented at Einstein Meets Magritte conference, Brussels, Belgium, 1995)
• Zen in the Art of Archery (Herrigel)
• The Prodigy (Wallace)
• Steppenwolf (Hesse)
• SoSR (only 50pgs so far) (Kuhn)

Coming Up:

• I just purchased Mae-wan Ho's the Rainbow and the Worm 1999, 2nd edition, its about double the volume of 1993 version. (Just thought you'd like to know.)
• Have yet to read any of Bergson's work. I see a couple of reviews on your site, are these the complete wordings? If not do you suggest reading his book or your review first?
• I've glanced at Bohm's Quantum Theory. In the opening paragraph it states: "It is presupposed that the reader is moderately familiar with Fourier Analysis". My maths stopped early calculus - Should I learn calculus then fourier analysis, or just plough through?

Yes, Quantonics has certainly shortened my efforts. Quantonics has helped me tremendously, even though I have only read a fraction of it's content. Y-our dialogs are particularly helpful. Its possible that I may have never (in this life) understood MoQ, even at the level I do now, without it.

Happy 5th Anniversary Quantonics & Doug,

MJ.

Subject:	Re: Readings
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:24:58 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hi MJ!

Wondered how you are doing.

Remember that this is your Chautauqua. You decide where it takes you. Pirsig, Bergson, Bohm, Baggott, et al., can only tell you about their Chautauquas — and there are n¤ absolutes! We have more fun doing this when we take our time. N¤ schedules. N¤ urgencies. Enjoy your trip.

That you are already experiencing your own epiphanies and imaginings is a very good sign. You appear, already, to be tapping Pirsig's DQ and allowing it to emerse n¤vel memes on your quantum stage.

What we learned about that, from reading Sylvia Nasar's biographical documentary of John Forbes Nash, is that we must always allow our quantum stages to examine those imaginings outside SOM's box. When Nash, and even Pirsig to some extent, tried to grasp underlying semantics of those imaginings in SOM, they saw naught but paradice. Paradice evaporate when we leave SOM's box — when we enter a n¤vel more quantum way of think-king.

We want to put segments of our dialogue on our Quantonics web site. If you agree, then state your requirements for your part of our dialogue. Usually we only use a pseudonym or first name and we fire/flameproof your email address. Plus, we need to retain editorial privileges for spelling, some grammar, addition of apropos links, etc. We will place our dialogues on Quantonics sometime in March.

Your reading list looks really good to us. Also, your recent purchases. Thank you for telling us about tRatW's increased volume in its 1999 ed. We had n¤ idea.

Our Quantonics site has complete texts of Bergson's Introduction to Metaphysics, Creative Evolution, and his Time and Free Will. Complete text appears in left columns. Our comprehensive comments appear in right columns. His Matter and Memory was only recently transposed in English, and as a result those people have a copyright on that translation. We will translate and full-text review it ourselves on Quantonics when we acquire a French original. TaFW contains a full bibliography of Bergson's works (and his extensive references for TaFW). You can look there to discover more of his works. Our efforts have almost covered his significant issues in philosophy.

Try reading just text, if you can. Then try reading text and comments. Try reading only comments. Decide which you 'like' better. His ItM is shortest and probably would give you a quick overview. Remember that his French has been translated to English. English is a very crude language. French is full of nuances, some of which may be lost under English's coarse tread. We measure each translator's thelogos. All are high. See TaFW's Translator's Preface.

We have only reviewed William James' last work, Some Problems of Philosophy (SPoP). It is 98% full text. Only insignificant early portions of that text are missing. His Varieties of Religious Experience (VoRE) is covered inadequately in Geertz' Available Light which we review on our site. Pirsig used significant memes from Geertz' work and refers Geertz' rhetoric "sparkling."

SoSR is a superb text. It shows Kuhn as a genuine, struggling human being (as are we all). It shows him as a complex mixture of SOM, CR, MoQ, and quantum interpretations, heuristics, and "imaginings." It really shows his struggle: intuitions that he should leave SOM's mythos, but heuristics/conjectures that other resides outside SOM's disciplined paradigm.

Regarding Bohm's Quantum Theory... Our view is that reality is n¤t mechanical. Bohm says it like this, "We need a nonmechanics of reality." That makes him supremely important as someone who is capable of residing outside SOM's box. Bergson's duration is a statement that reality is n¤nmechanical, and that mathematics is only capable of turning reality into useless mechanical models. Useless in Pirsig's sense of SQ (mathematical models) having lost their Quality.

Our baccalaureate is in mathematics. But our skills are limited, and we have never 'trusted' maths. Our recommendation is to treat Bohm's mathematics as pictures rather than script. You will be OK studying math once you see that math is ESQ, but it is an attempt to 'describe' reality which is a good thing in itself.

What is wrong with math? It is static, and mostly objective. That is why you see us saying that we need n¤vel semiotics to replace math notation. Our quanton is our best generic start at that.

We ask students to imagine all reality as a mixture of Pirsig's both DQ and SQ. Maths' notations are SQ without DQ. Former we show as quanton(s)(DQ,SQ) and latter we show as dichon(s)(DQ, SQ). Comma-space is SOM's wall, its great subject-object schism. Comma-nospace is our suture of that schism. That suture represents Bergson's duration ideally, especially when it is animated on our quantum stages. That suture represents quantum uncertainty at all scales of reality. That suture represents what Zeno was attempting to show ~2500 years ago in his four paradice. And so on...

We use our mathematics to convert SQ maths into living quantons. We took physics' least quantum action, e=h and turned it into a least comtext quanton. Just recently, we took Hamilton's hypercomplex quaternion and did same using our recursive quantum square root conversion of subjective maths' -1=eⁱ.

From whence our epiphany of a recursive quantum square root? Feynman's fascination with maths' -1 as described by Gleick in his Feynman bio titled Genius. And Nasar's description of Nash's teaching of square root of -1.

Seeing recursion in -1=eⁱ is an epiphany. As far as we know, we were first to see that recursion. We developed a n¤vel semiotic for it. It receives many hits from apparently bewildered mathematicians all over our world. It's a BIG deal as you already recognize Pirsig's and Bergson's et al's. works are BIG deals. That we recognize that is important. On Bohm's caveat: Bergson tells us that reality is process and that process may n¤t be 'analysed.' Plough through. Enough on mathematics.

Thank you, MJ, for sharing our 5th with us.

Best and many truths to you,

Doug.
==
==
In Quantonics
The Quantonics Society
www.quantonics.com
==
"The expression of the new quantum concepts is beset
with severe difficulties, because much of our customary
language and thinking is predicated on the tacit assumption
that classical concepts are substantially correct."

1951, David Bohm in his 'Quantum Theory,' Chapter 8, Summary
 

Subject:	Quantum Maths
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:07:28 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	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

Hi Doug,

Feel free to put segments of our dialog on your web site. You can use my name, MJ. There is nothing overly personal in them, edit as you see fit.

Sounds as though you really do know 5 languages? If so you are frightening! And if so, at what age did you learn them? I suppose you play violin too? I don't play a musical instrument, but I have begin to sing at home to feel DQ. I like these musical analogies though (eg- violin), music seems to have interesting interpenetrations of reality.

Sorry, I made a mistake in our last email. Ho's 1993 tRatW is ~220 pages hard cover, and her 1999 version is ~304 pages soft cover, likely not much difference. I mistook her 1993 tRatW to only have ~120 pages. I hope you haven't ordered it?.

I agree, my chautauqua is more fun when I take my time. Actually my "Comming up" readings were mainly so I could enquire about them. There is an element of SQ bullying, I admit. I'll let go: its possible that I'll take years or never read them. I'm not 'the' controller.

In light (or darkness) of current world events I've been prompted to further investigate Pirsig's social level. I think one of the best authors to explore our Western social levels' stuckness is Noam Chomsky.. Unfortunately, the more one learns of these social axiom sets and their interactions, the more dire and ludicrous our real social situation appears. Such low value verges on horrific evil. Chomsky appears to present unbiased, well researched facts, before expounding his own opinions which are well based on these facts. Naturally he is labeled a radical (ring any bells?). I guess you have probably already read him, considering your link to John Taylor Gatto and all. Good reading is Preface & Ch1 of Manufacturing Consent. Particularly important for citizens of the U.S.A.

Interesting formula: -1=eⁱ

A few questions:

1. Does e (least quantum action) have anything to do with 2.718...?
2. Do classical maths recognise the more general version: aⁱ = -b ?
3. If so, where would I find this proof, it seems very profound?
4. Maths question (for visualisation): How is the number (a + ib) plotted on the 3D <x,y,z> axis? Should the number 'a' express an x or y coordinate?

Kind regards,

MJ.

Subject:	Chomsky.
Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:43:55 -0500
From:	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
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@aol.com

MJ,

Thank you for permitting us to use your quantum complement of our dialogues.

Still sounds like tRatW is a tad longer. We'll check it out prior to purchasing.

We play trumpet and whistle. Violin is interesting to us as a Prince Louis de Broglie (de Broy) metaphor of quantum reality. De Broglie's Ph.D. thesis is unique in that it shows a wave basis and interpretation of quantum reality. It says literally "matter is waves." Now we know those de Broglie waves are (at least) quatrotomous: negentropy (nonpreferential isoflux), zeroentropy (bosonic flux), posentropy (fermionic flux AKA "matter waves"), and mixentropy (mixtures of all of those).

Chomsky, according to our studies of him, is a SOMite. (But nearly everyone is, so that isn't really saying much.) Key meme with Chomsky is that, in our view, he misses notions of an included-middle. Real grammar and semantics depend upon animate quantum EIMAs to express their richness. We agree with his memes of anarchy in terms of expression of individual freedoms and free will. (I.e., in Pirsigese: more highly evolving intellectual SPoVs over less evolving and more viscous, consensual (commonist sense) social SPoVs.)

Important to understanding Pirsig's social level is: social SPoVs are what entrap/imprison/detend/confine intellect (in a manner similar to a violin body entrapping/imprisoning/detending/confining its limited 'tunable' and almost boundlessly 'playable' society of four strings). History shows us a major cultural problematic: most social patterns of value fear and despise intellect. But intellect is what allows each of us to have free will. Fathom how notions of excluded-middle of mind and body work on behalf of social patterns' own anti-intellectual efforts. Again, we favor Pirsig's genius in counseling stindyanic balance. A neat way to look at this from a social perspective is to say that balance requires a li-la-moral string society of individual potential-notes-ings intellects to respect their violin body (and vast arrays of other violin bodies and cello bodies and bass viola bodies...etc.), and a violin body's social rules and confining and viscous structure to respect individual string-ings and notes-ings intellects who want to be 'free.' Now scale that to USA and Iraq. It's a neat way to eliminate/see-through Bush/Hussein polemics and get to core of what is really most Valuable and important on Earth today.

Pirsig's thesis is that mind (quantum stage) is in its ascension of gaining comtrol, and social patterns are in their decline of losing control. Most of our culture and other wars are residual qualitative affects of this vast quantum tsunami of change. Geertz agrees and calls it (social) "disassembly." Easy way to think about this is to recognize that quantum 'mind' is closer to Dynamic Quality and societies' structural bodies are vastly further away from DQ.

Again, fathom Millennium III's quantum both intellectual ascension in its apparent quantum coherency and social decline in its SOMitic chaos. Fascinating! A very QTM way to grasp a kind of Steppenwolf-esque "Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages [e.g. paradigms], two cultures and religions overlap." P. 24, Steppenwolf. This view, in our view, portends a violent end to chauvinistic Earth-borne SOMitic fundamentalism whether religious, scientific, cultural, etc.

We do n¤t agree with GW Bush's plans for war, essentially due to that ascension process. Wars against nations are n¤t only futile, they are stupid. We see terrorism, as a virtual threat, as demanding a virtual (n¤t a national) defense. We must take out individuals, n¤t nations. Metric for elimination of an individual: whether they preach SOMitic dichotomous hatred and mass-elimination of free sentients. USA isn't having much luck with presidents recently. They're either left or right: dichon(left, right). A genuine quantum president is many decades away, in our view, likely preceded by a gradual development of quantum politics.

N¤ MJ, we do n¤t speak five languages. Our point is that we are capable of learning them, and it isn't as challenging as one might believe. We are picking up Latin, French, and some German as we go. It is amazing how each language can add semantics which do n¤t exist in English. So we see their use as part of our quantum extensions and remediation of English language.

As we told you, we have a baccalaureate in math, but we do n¤t use it in our daily efforts, except in cases like Riemann's Hypothesis (RH) which crosses over into quantum aspects of Quantonics. Too, most maths are purely classical, those including i, being exceptional in their sense of quantum included-middle subjectivity (which classicists currently refer "complex," and "hypercomplex," etc.). If we view 1 as -1 x -1, where those minus signs are quantum (see mihnus and negati¤n), then we can see 'one' (and classical monism) in its (their) Bergsonian "negati¤n is subjective" underpinnings.

You wrote -

"A few questions:
1. Does e (least quantum action) have anything to do with 2.718...?
2. Does classical maths recognise the more general version: aⁱ = -b ?
3. If so, where would I find this proof, it seems very profound?
4. Maths question (for visualisation): How is the number (a + ib) plotted on the 3D <x,y,z> axis? Should the number 'a' express an x or y coordinate?"

MJ, on item 1., we have to say that 2.718... has to do with almost everything. But recall what we said above about most maths being purely classical. In Sylvia Nasar's biographical documentary of John Forbes Nash she talks about how Nash saw classical constants as "variables." (E.g., our quantum_ as variable in our Quantonic Symbols page.) Classical maths view/conceive , e, Feigenbaum's constant, Fibonacci number, one, zero, i, etc. as constants (whether integer, rational, irrational, etc.). Constants are classically objective. That is edict. Dogma. Doctrine. Province. Prison!!!

Nash saw them as variables (which in quantum reality they must be, due quantum reality's absolute flux imperative) which showed (and impressed us with) his beyond-genius quantum intuitions. See our "One is the (L)oneliest Number." As a result most of Nash's peers at Princeton saw him as crazy. Something similar happened to Pirsig, Gödel (his two Incompleteness theorems are recursive sophisms), Turing, etc. We view them as quantum intuitive individuals.

We try to stay away from classically objective mathematical notions for several reasons. They put us back in SOM's box. They prevent us from (are key disablers for) having quantum real epiphanies. Feynman and Dyson both have said that they thought Einstein's imaginative powers declined after he learned how to use maths to objectively express deeper complexities of his relativity theories in larger contexts. We agree. So we try to stay away from classical, objective, excluded-middle math notions.

But trigonometry is about waves, isn't it? And we can (like we say about languages and their words and characters) learn to view classical constants as animate and emerging/sophist variables, can't we?

On our symbols page we show least action as h-bar which is 2h. Now think about that. What is it physially? We can show it as a circle with radius h. A circle with Planck's least action 'constant' as a radius. But we have said, "There are no constants in quantum nature." So h is n¤t constant. 2 is n¤t constant.  is n¤t constant. What do we do? We learn how to show them as animate, and potentially emerging/sophist variables. Quantonics gives us (pioneering, rudimentary, precursor, innovative) means to do that. We call them semiotically "quantons" and linguistically "memes." A least quanton is an h-bar quantum with its comjugational complement. We assume an h-bar quantum co-inside-s its actual and conjugational/imaginary real quantum c¤mplements.

But we still, for now (our cusping yet uncertain learning modes are far from their statistical maxima), need to use some of those classical symbols to express our quantum memes as classical special cases. They, for now, assist our more general quantum intuitions. Key is to be able to imagine their more quantum animate behavior potentia.

We can show e^ih as cos(h) + isin(h). We plot complex numbers as both a real and complex plane with imaginary parts normal to reals. That approach gives us a 2D perspective of 'complex' classical reality. Indeed, it may be clear to you that cos(h) is capable of showing least action as a recursive least action classically closed (i.e., as ideally, invariantly, 3.1415926...) circle. Imaginary part is a ninety degree (/2) phase shifted least action circle too. You should notice that h-bar is 2h. So one full least action loop is h + h (it helps to draw this two-semicircle picture and note directionality of h when portrayed as a radius vector; of course this is still purely classical thing-king and reasoning). Too, one full least action loop is h-bar/2 + h-bar/2. Comsider classical uniqueness of 2:

• only even prime, (genuine quantum hermeneutic uniqueness; "hermeneutic:" "Interpretation involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost.)
• square, (emergence metaphor)
• square-root, (immergence metaphor)
• fermions (1/2 spin), (objective reality fooler; when square-rooted/contrarotated becomes bosonic)
• gravity (spin 2; now, given this brief list of bullet items, isn't it obviously easier to weigh how we can develop antigravity?),
• etc.

It should be apparent that 2 becomes (when animated and middle-included) a basis of quantum ontology (emergence, immergence, fermionic wobble, mass librati¤n, retr¤reflecti¤n, negati¤n of refracti¤n indices, superluminality, supercomductivity, superliquidity, c¤herent reversihbility, quantum spin glass m¤rphing, zer¤ latency quantum perihgrinati¤n, etc.)

To "go 3D" we need some other tools (esp. other, normal/orthogonal real-imaginary planes; planes may be represented as Hamiltonian quaternions; 3D may be represented as complex U, I, J, K quaternions; i.e., four: identity, I, J, K planes).

It is interesting that you ask about this, because we are just reading about how Dirac fixed Pauli's very difficult problems achieving mathematical, relativistic QED. Pauli was working with complex numbers called quaternions which are two-space representations (with paired conjugates) of reality. Pauli uses three (i, j, k) two space planes plus an 'identity' (~quaternions) to represent his 3D reality (each plane is real²; their combination is real³). Dirac moved into four space (four 4x4, real⁴ matrices; that was his remarkable epiphany; see Tomonaga's The Story of Spin) and Pauli's problems simply evaporated. See/search Dirac's matrices vis-à-vis Pauli's matrices (essentially 2-space quaternions). Of course in Quantonics quantum reality is animate, included-middle, and omni-'dimensional,' none of which Pauli/Dirac could eidetically imagine due their classical blinders of stable inanimacy, excluded-middle, and monolithic spatial extensity.

If you have not read Nasar's A Beautiful Mind, and you are interested in what we just wrote, you will find there that mathematicians of any powers at all intuit a huge meme: lower dimensional manifolds have lower expressive power than higher dimensional manifolds. Pauli's usage of two space was not as expressive as Dirac's usage of four space. Lower dimensional manifolds have more "wrinkles." Higher dimensional manifolds gradually (with dimensional increases) remove lower manifold's "wrinkles."

We do not have an immediate answer for your aⁱ = -b, but we see its subjectivity in i as a quantum animate/qualitative entity. Here we can show -1 as a quantum subjective recursion from (least action) h to to unlimited (N x h) action like this (leaving out limits and subscripts): sqrt(e(sqrt(e(sqrt(e...sqrt(eⁱ))))))². To make that classical notation work in quantum reality, we make sqrt and 2 and e, , and i all quantum vis-à-vis classical. Too, parentheses are presumed EIMA quantum-comtextual. That was our own epiphany which helped us view RH so much omnifferently than classicists do. It also helped us understand Pauli's 'difficulties' with his four, 2-space ~quaternions. You may see how easy then it is to just take sqrt of -1 and we get i. Given that you, MJ, may notice that your aⁱ = -b has i on both sides of that ugly classical equals sign because sqrt(-1) is i. So your example is, at least in Quantonics, quantum animate/sophist recursive. Your little equation becomes more quantum real (when we add our Quantonics 'equals' semiotic). In a way, it tells us directly that reality is quantum subjective, and 'not' just classically objective.

What about 1? We describe (in Quantonics) 1 quantum physially/variably as a ratio of two Quantonic least action quantons. What about animate zero? We describe zero as an omnifference of two of our quantum-animate 1s. So now we have Quantonic animate quantum descriptions of i, -1, 1, and zero! We think this accomplishment is incredibly important. However, no one at this juncture understands. So no one, yet, can affirm goodness of our efforts. As we say, and have said for over seven years now, "Quantonics is a 'new' way of think-king."

Best,

Doug.
==
In Quantonics
The Quantonics Society
www.quantonics.com
==
"The expression of the new quantum concepts is beset
with severe difficulties, because much of our customary
language and thinking is predicated on the tacit assumption
that classical concepts are substantially correct."

1951, David Bohm in his 'Quantum Theory,' Chapter 8, Summary