Coined contraction of 'classical' and 'meme.' Classical memes are subject | object dichotomy memes which adhere Aristotle's excluded | middle syllogistic logic.

Index

Coined Quantonic replacement for classical 'coherencies.'

Classical coherencies are limited to physical manifestations of SOM reality.

Quantonic cohera are memes of absolute flux likelihood~omnistributionings and interrelationships of those QLOs in quantum reality.

Ihn Quantonics wæ præsumæ quantum c¤hera aræ aptly quatr¤t¤m¤us (wæ ihntuiht p¤tæntial f¤r m¤re, ihndææd ~quantum~n¤mbæred c¤hera, amd that issi why wæ nææd 'c¤hera'):

• is¤c¤herænce (a quantum mæmæ¤, sæmpær QVF, is¤~0 n¤ncomcæptual spinless is¤flux,
  quantum n¤nahctualihty; c¤rresp¤nds nægæntr¤py)
• c¤herænce (a quantum mæmæo, spihn 0, 1, amd 2 (ihnteger spihn) quantum flux; c¤rresp¤nds zær¤æntr¤py)
• decoherence (a classical notion, spin 1/2 quantum flux; this is what classicists call 'reality;' corresponds "positive gradient only" 'posentropy' (Maxwell's 'entropy' disallows negative gradients and zero | and neg | entropy 'notions'))
• mihxc¤herænce (a quantum mæmæo, supærp¤sihti¤ning, c¤mpænetrating mihxtures~partials ¤f ab¤ve thrææ; c¤rresp¤nds mihxæntr¤py)

Th¤se f¤ur c¤heræncy mæmæo wæ cahll "c¤hera." Each of those 'notions' still retains too much classical legacy. Zero, one, two, and 1/2 are classical legacy invariant | immutable, logical and radically mechanical mathematical EEMD notions. A Quantonics g¤al issi t¤ ræmædiatæ classical notions of 'number' ihnt¤ quantum mæmæo~quantons~mætaph¤rs wæ cahll "n¤mbær." Quantum zær¤ issi a n¤n state-ic, n¤næmpty~QVF mæmæo.

Sææ entropa bæl¤w.

Sææ ¤ur One is Loneliest Number. Sææ supærb m¤dalihties ¤f quantum zær¤, ¤næ, tw¤ amd squar_qe ~r¤¤t (i.e., 1/2) at ¤ur quantum Hamiltonian quaternion.

Index

Literally, "co~inside." Essence of Quantonics' most important philosophical and metaphysical quantum epiphany. Approximate synonyms are: co~here~ence, commingling, compenetration (William James), copermeability, cowithinitness, fusion (Henri L. Bergson), interpenetration (Bergson, Fritjof Capra), included~middle (antithetic complement of Aristotle's excluded | middle), interrelationships (Henri Poincaré & Robert M. Pirsig), latency (R.I.G. Hughes), overlapping symphysis, permeation (Bergson), Venn Gestalt, etc.

Ihntænti¤nahlly, argumænts~c¤mplæmænts ¤f ¤ur quantonic n¤tati¤n c¤ihnsihdæ, which wæ dæpihct sihmply by ¤ur edihct ¤f n¤ spacæ ahll¤wæd aftær c¤mma, e.g., MoQ_Ræhlihty quanton(DQ,SQ). Bæst dæpihcted graphicahlly as a still (~70k), m¤st ræcæntly as b¤th Planck and Quality Events, amd an animation (over 300k).

C¤ihnsihdænce as a mæmæ has dææp phil¤s¤phical amd mætaphysihcal lægacy. Notably, Henri Bergson perceived essence of 'coinsidence' in his own memes of intuition and intellectual sympathy. He saw one's ability to 'enter' an 'object' as both intuition and intellectual sympathy. He distinguished external (excluded | middle) observation of 'objects' as imperfect.

Comsihdær h¤w cl¤sely his mæmæs ¤f ihntuihti¤n amd ihntællectual sympathy c¤ihnsihdæ wihth ¤ur mæmæ ¤f ubihquiht¤us mind as a quantum stage. Our l¤cal quantum minds ahll¤w us t¤ c¤ihnsihdæ ahll ¤f ræhlihty at ¤ur ¤wn v¤lihti¤n.

This issi pærhaps ¤næ ¤f ¤ur m¤st ihmp¤hrtant Quantonic c¤ihned tærms bæcausæ iht ahll¤ws ¤næ t¤ grashp a quantum epiphany ¤f b¤th~amd ihnclusi¤n ¤f sælf amd ahll ¤f ræhlihty. Usæ Quantonic Thinking M¤dæs (QTMs) t¤ c¤mmænce ihntuihti¤n ¤f y¤ur mind as a ræhlihty~c¤ihnsihdænt (reserve energy~penetrating~) quantum stagæ, n¤t as a classical, separate subject or object.

C¤ihnsihdænce as a n¤vel mæmæ ¤mnihquæly ¤mnistinguishes Quantonics ihn ihts phil¤s¤phical, mætaphysihcal, amd scihænce pærspæctihvæs. Quantonics ¤mnihquæly pærcæihves ræhlihty as c¤ihnsihdænt, h¤listihc, ihncludæd~mihddle, quantum b¤th~amd quantons. A key mæmæ ¤f QTMs issi c¤ihnsihdænce.

Fihrst c¤ihned by Doug ihn æarly 1996 t¤ capture æssænce ¤f quantum c¤wihthinihtness amd mind as a quantum stagæ. Index

Coined quantumese for obsolete classical 'concept.' Quantum comcæpts have n¤n Aristotelian ihncludæd~mihddles vis~à~vis classical SOM 'concepts' whose excluded | middles are purely Aristotelian syllogistic, i.e., A is not both A and not A. As we have shown in our Aristotle Connection, quantum comcæpts aræ b¤th A amd n¤t A.

Quantonic~quantum comcæpts may c¤mmingle, c¤mpænetratæ, amd c¤ihnsihdæ ¤næ an¤thær.

Index Also see Con-

Comjugate (n¤nactuality)
Comjugated
Comjugates
Comjugating
Comjugation
Conjugate (classical actuality)
C¤njugate (quantonic actuality)

(see table below)

Coined quantumese for Quantonic extension to classical 'conjugate.'

Where classical 'conjugate' is a term which assumes only a classical actualized reality and all baggage attending that materialistic object-based 'reality:' inanimacy, monolithicity, homogeneity, closure, conservation, analyticity, classical formal negation ('not,' 'no,' etc.) — quantum comjugatæ issi ¤ur n¤vel tærm which assumæs a quantum b¤th n¤nahctual amd ahctual ræhlihty.

Iht gihves us a n¤vel vihew ¤f a quantum ræhlihty which issi vahstly largær amd m¤re c¤mplex than simple classical conjugate reality. Wæ may ¤mnistinguish these tw¤ vihews rather easily ihn Quantonics scrihpt:

quantum_ræhlihty quanton (n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty), vis~à~vis

These simple scripts show clearly that quantum ræhlihty issi quantonic amd classical reality is dichonic.

Quantum ræhlihty issi comjugati¤nal. Classical reality is conjugational.

Our Quantonics scrihpts bæg us t¤ umdærstamd that whæn wæ stamd ihn quantum ræhlihty, wæ must takæ a largær vihew amd usæ n¤vel m¤dæs ¤f think~king (QTMs) t¤ fath¤m this græhter amd gramdær amd m¤re Valuablæ ræhlihty.

When we take our reference as actuality, and stand in actuality, and declare that is whole reality, then we are declaring ourselves "classicists." In doing so, and in order for our classical thing-king 'methods' to work, we must concomitantly deny quantum n¤nahctualihty. We must deny any 'reality' outside of our classically real and closed 'actuality.' Our classical methods then, are limited to only dealing with 'things' in actuality and classical 'interactions' among those classical 'things.' When we thingk this way quantum reality Hydes he~rself from us. We cannot see he~r due our CTMs and their attendant blinders.

But whæn wæ takæ amd makæ a quantum læap ¤f faihth — whæn wæ viscerahlly ch¤¤se t¤ stamd ihn b¤th n¤nahctualihty amd ahctualihty, then further ræc¤gnihze that quantum n¤nahctualihty amd quantum ahctualihty anihmatæly, ihncludæd~mihddle c¤mmingle (EIMA) ¤næ an¤thær — then quantum ræhlihty ¤pæns he~r d¤¤rs f¤r us amd wælc¤mæs us ihnsihde.

S¤, ræhdær, y¤u may fath¤m h¤w wæ nææd n¤vel tærms t¤ help us dæscrihbæ quantum comjugati¤nal ihnterrelati¤nships am¤ng quantum n¤nahctualihty(ies) amd quantum ahctualihty(ies). Doug - 1Nov2002.

Quantum comjugatæ assumæs a quantum b¤th n¤nahctual amd ahctual ræhlihty which c¤mmingles via Planck ratæ anihmacy. Anihmatæ quantum ræhlihty issi an abs¤lutæ flux~basæd 'ræhlihty:' c¤hesihve amd plurahl, heterogæne¤us, ¤pæn, quantum st¤chastihc, quantum c¤mplæmæntarihty ('n¤t,' 'n¤,' etc.), absænt any multihværsal 'comservati¤n' (¤nly comtextuahlly l¤cal apparæncy), amd s¤ ¤n...

Classical 'conjugate' only applies, as a classical dichon, t¤ ¤ur quantum ræhlihty's ahctual c¤mplement. Classical 'conjugate' denies quantum ræhlihty's c¤mplæmæntarihty amd any e[istænce ¤f ihts n¤nahctual c¤mplæmænt. Classical conjugates are dichons(actuality, actuality) or more specifically dichons(dyad_1, dyad_2). An important example here is classical square root (esp. as used to manipulate probability amplitudes), e.g., dichon(minus, plus). Classical square roots of, e.g., probability amplitudes are dichotomously either plus or minus.

Our n¤vel tærm comjugatæ assumæs quantum ræhlihty. Ihn fahct, iht dæclaræs quantum n¤nahctualihty amd quantum ahctualihty as quantum c¤mplæmæntary comjugatæs ¤f ¤næ an¤thær. Quantum comjugatæs aræ quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty), amd m¤re spæcihfihcahlly quantons(¤mniad_1q,¤mniad_2q) lattær assuming ubihquiht¤us c¤mmingling ¤f n¤nahctualihty wihth ahll quantum ¤mniads (i.e., quantons). We slightly alter and retain our old classical 'conjugate' friend to describe c¤mplæmæntary quantum ihnterrelati¤nships ihn ahctualihty lihkæ this:

An quantum anahlogue ¤f ¤ur classical square root example above tells us that quantum squar_qe r¤¤ts ¤f, e.g., pr¤babilihty amplihtudæs aræ quantonicahlly b¤th~while plus amd~mihnus, i.e., quanton(mihnus,plus). S¤ whæn wæ vihew ¤ur quantonic anihmatæd Planck quanton, wæ may vihew ihts is¤¤mniræcti¤nal n¤nahctual d¤tted blue is¤flux c¤mplæmænt as pr¤babilihty amplihtudæ (i.e., quantum squar_qe r¤¤t), amd wæ may vihew ¤ur ahctualihzed black~grææn 'unidirectional' c¤mplæmænt as pr¤babilihty amplihtudæ squar_qed. What issi m¤st fascihnating ¤f ahll hæræ, issi h¤w this n¤nahctual quantum squar_qe r¤¤t anihmatæly~ihncludæd~mihddle b¤th~while c¤affæcts amd c¤mmingles ahctualihty.

By comparison actuality's classical square root is always a dichon(minus, plus); either plus or minus.

Consider how Irving Stein in his The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics offers a unidimensional, Buridan's Ass isobidirectional (Stein calls it "nonpreferential,") random walk analogue of our quantonic squar_qe r¤¤t. Using Stein's language we can say that ¤ur quantonic squar_qe r¤¤t issi "n¤npræfæræntial." Omnihstihlled, ihn quantum n¤nahctualihty, squar_qe r¤¤ts aræ n¤npræfæræntial! Imagine how dramatically this should alter physicists' everyday uses of usually classical mathematics in their usual classical thing-king about quantum reality. Note that Stein classically views his Schrödinger quantum object as excluded | middle either nonpreferential nonspace or preferential space. His model does not permit nonspace | nonactuality and space | actuality to animately commingle one another. This is a major ontological problematic for Stein's quantum model, which wæ bæliævæ ¤ur m¤dalings appr¤ach mihtigatæs signihfihcantly.

When we use 'conjugate,' then we must di-stinguish whether we assume our context is classical ¤hr ¤ur comtext issi quantum . Conjugate is dichonic in context and quantonic ihn comtext. Using our — space-character-copulum means classical — n¤~spacæ~charahcter~c¤pulum mæans quantum — text modes we can then say conjugate(a, b) is in context and conjugate(a,b) is ihn a spæcihfihc, classically shrouded, quantum l¤cal comtext.

T¤ e[æmplihfy h¤w b¤th quantum comjugatæ ræhlihty amd ihts m¤re classical conjugate actuality c¤mpænetratæ amd c¤mmingle ¤næ an¤thær ihn comtext, ahll¤w us t¤ usæ b¤th text amd c¤l¤r t¤ sh¤w their c¤mmingling c¤mpænetrati¤n. Læt's usæ ahctualihty's wavæ~partihcle c¤mplæmænt t¤ dæpihct ¤ur c¤njugate mæmæ¤tihc. Læt's usæ ræhlihty's n¤nahctual~ahctual c¤mplæmænt t¤ dæpihct ¤ur comjugatæ mæmæ¤tihc. Wæ'll usæ ¤ur stamdard quanton mæmæ¤tihc t¤ c¤mmingle~c¤mpænetratæ b¤th as a comtextual ihntuæmæ ¤f quantum ræhlihty. Læt's usæ red f¤r ¤ur c¤njugate (comtextual, ahctualihty~ahctualihty) mæmæ¤tihcs, blue f¤r ¤ur comjugatæ (comtextual, n¤nahctualihty~ahctualihty mæmæ¤tihcs, amd grææn f¤r ¤ur c¤mp¤sihte quanton mæmæ¤tihcs, lihkæ this:

Note that our first comma, left to right, is green. Also note that our three terminal parentheses are: red, blue then green from left to right. This color mixing represents quantum ræhlihty's comtextual c¤mmingling amd c¤mpænetrati¤n. Wæ sææ that quantum n¤nahctualihty (ahll umlatched is¤flux p¤ssibilihties) amd conjugate actuality (tentatively latched flux actualities) aræ c¤mplæmæntary comjugatæs ¤f ¤næ an¤thær. As wavæs~partihcles supærp¤sæ ihn quantum ahctualihty, n¤nahctualihties~ahctualihties supærp¤sæ ihn quantum ræhlihty!

More recently, during 2002, we advanced our remediation of words like 'conjugate' to offer more flexibility. We now offer four interrelating Quantonics versions of 'conjugate' and its forms (emerqs):

conjugate(object_1, object_2) conjugate(quanton_1, quanton_2) c¤njugate(quanton_1,quanton_2) comjugatæ(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty)

Legacy version; conjugation of ideal classical objects. Classical EEMD conjugation of quantons as objects. Quantonics actuality EIMA c¤njugati¤n of quantons. Quantonics genæral ræhlihty EIMA comjugati¤n ¤f quantons.

Wæ aræ n¤t k~n¤w~ings h¤w t¤ ihnterpret ahll p¤ssible c¤mbihnati¤ns ¤f tærms hæræ (h¤wævær, wæ made an attæmpt bæl¤w, ihn ¤ur bullæt list ¤f 24_q p¤ssibilihties).

Thæræ appæar t¤ bæ many, f¤r e[ample: conjugate, c¤njugate, comjugatæ, plus dihchon amd quanton, plus ahctual amd n¤nahctual. A good specific example we talked about above and did not show in our four-item list, is conjugate(object_1,object_2). That is, classical objects viewed conjugally, however, wihth pærhaps ihntændæd quantum ihncludæd~mihddles (This is a simple exegesis for "Murphy," "Bell Inequalities," "quantum uncertainty," etc.). A big issue, at this stage of our discussion, is that classical reality is an apparition, and we do not want to retain that apparition long term. What wæ sh¤w hæræ issi m¤re ¤f a brihdge fr¤m classical thing-king t¤ quantum think~king — fr¤m thingk t¤ think. Our ihntuihti¤ns sahy that wæ sh¤uld n¤t put eff¤rt ihnt¤ dæscrihbing ahll th¤se hærmænæutihcs whæn m¤st ¤f thæm may bæ ihnvalihd l¤ng tærm. (You may find it a worthwhile and self~heuristic help to ponder them just to practice manipulating roughly a dozen classical~quantum mixed con(m)texts. F¤r us, quanton(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty) tælls ¤ur largær quantum st¤ry, curræntly, t¤ ¤ur satisfahcti¤n. We believe, at some futurings classical machinations shall be only artefacts of many pastings.) Doug - 20Jan2004.

Here's a start using our quantum m¤dalings; assumpti¤n — hærmænæutihcs:

conjugate(dichon, dichon) — (1) classical excluded | middle of dichons (classically deny n¤nahctualihty) conjugate(dichon,dichon) — classical included~middle of dichons (classically deny n¤nahctualihty while citing "Murphy") conjugate(dichon, quanton) — classical excluded | middle of dichon & quanton (n¤nahctualihty creeps in) conjugate(dichon,quanton) — classical included~middle of dichon & quanton (try to classically ignore it) conjugate(quanton, dichon) — classical excluded | middle of commutable dichon & quanton (n¤nahctualihty creeps in) conjugate(quanton,dichon) — classical included~middle of commutable dichon & quanton (try to classically ignore it) conjugate(quanton, quanton) — (2) classical excluded | middle (try to prevent n¤nahctualihty) conjugate(quanton,quanton) — classical included~middle (treat quantum systems 'externally' as boxed-in dichons) c¤njugate(dichon, dichon) — classical 'imaginary' excluded | middle of classical ideal dichons c¤njugate(dichon,dichon) — classical 'imaginary' included~middle of classical "absurdities" AKA "Bell Inequalities" c¤njugate(dichon, quanton) — classical 'imaginary' excluded | middle of dichon & quanton c¤njugate(dichon,quanton) — classical 'imaginary' included~middle of dichon & quanton c¤njugate(quanton, dichon) — classical 'imaginary' excluded | middle of dichon & quanton c¤njugate(quanton,dichon) — classical 'imaginary' included~middle of dichon & quanton c¤njugate(quanton, quanton) — classical 'imaginary' excluded | middle c¤njugate(quanton,quanton) — (3) quantum ~real included~middle yet still conceived in classical actuality comjugatæ (dichon, dichon) — quantum ~real 'excluded | middle' of classical ideal dichons comjugatæ (dichon,dichon) — quantum ræhl ihncludæd~mihddle ¤f dichons who admit their quantum nature comjugatæ (dichon, quanton) — quantum ~real 'excluded | middle' ¤f apparæntly commutable dichon & quanton comjugatæ(dihchon,quanton) — quantum ræhl ihncludæd~mihddle ¤f ~quantum dihchon (i.e., sobject) & quanton comjugatæ(quanton, dichon) — quantum ~real 'excluded | middle' ¤f apparæntly commutable dichon & quanton comjugatæ(quanton,dihchon) — quantum ræhl ihncludæd~mihddle ¤f ~quantum dihchon (i.e., sobject) & quanton comjugatæ(quanton, quanton) — quantum ~real 'excluded | middle' (m¤stly umæntangled quantons; partiahlly n¤nc¤mmutatihve) comjugatæ(quanton,quanton) — (4) quantum ræhl ihncludæd~mihddle (partiahlly æntangled quantons; m¤stly n¤nc¤mmutatihve)

Here is our new graphic which shows our two thogons, i.e., quanton vis~à~vis dichon, above in a 2D quantum depiction (also see our analogous Millennium III Map of Quantonic Reality):

We added classical 'square root' vis~à~vis quantum squar_qe r¤¤t semiotics to our graphic above. Our classical 'square root' semiotic has a 'C' attached to it where our quantum square r¤¤t semiotic has a 'Q' attached to it. Consider: using our new graph alterations, we may view pedantically how classical 'square root' issi dichotomously 'either | or' (EOOO) amd quantum squar_qe r¤¤t issi quantumly "b¤th~ahll~while~amd~many" (BAWAM). Classical square root and its 'inverse' manage classical transitions of probability amplitudes in actuality's isopreferential flux (isops). Quantum squar_qe r¤¤ts managæ quantum transihti¤ns ¤f æmærgænce amd ihts ihnværse fr¤m amd t¤ n¤nahctualihties' is¤n¤npræfæræntial isoflux (isons). H¤w d¤æs ræhlihty acc¤mplish these stranger værsi¤ns ¤f 'squar_qe r¤¤ts?' Wæ d¤ n¤t kn¤w. Doug. (Sææ ¤ur n¤vel Millænnium III Quantonics English Language Remediation (QELR) t¤ assist y¤ur ihnterpretati¤ns ¤f n¤vel tærms sh¤wn hæræ.)

Wæ c¤ihned comjugatæ as a n¤vel tærm since classihcal Ænglish languagæ has n¤ mæans ¤f expræssing quantum c¤mplæmæntary ahctual~n¤nahctual comjugati¤n.

Index

Quantonic quantumesque middle~inclusion of classical, analytic, dialectical terms proprioception, interoception, and exteroception.

Classically proprioception is psycho-soma-centric, interoception is psycho-centric, and exteroception is psycho-soma-external. All of these terms describe loci of perceived stimuli.

In Quantonics all three terms classically establish EOOO dichotomies:

• proprioceive(DQ, SQ), proprioceive(implicate_order, explicate_order), proprioceive(QVF, QAF), proprioceive(nonactuality, actuality), etc.
• interoceive(DQ, SQ), interoceive(implicate_order, explicate_order), interoceive(QVF, QAF), interoceive(nonactuality, actuality), etc.
• exteroceive(DQ, SQ), exteroceive(implicate_order, explicate_order), exteroceive(QVF, QAF), exteroceive(nonactuality, actuality), etc.

Those three bullets cover three combinations of mind (psycho) and body (soma). Notice how classical thingking methods (CTMs) tend to leave spirit (pneuma) out of 'reasoning.' They (classicists) call it "middle-exclusion."

Complementaroception cures said classical mechanics thus:

• c¤mplæmæntar¤cæivæ(DQ,SQ), c¤mplæmæntar¤cæihvæ(implihcatæ_¤hrdær,explihcatæ_¤hrdær), c¤mplæmæntar¤cæivæ(QVF,QAF), c¤mplæmæntar¤cæivæ(nonactuality,actuality), etc.

Does our quantonics script add pneuma? Yæs! Our comma~n¤space is a scripting quantique for middle~inclusion, thus ihncluding spirit and pneuma which we quantonic~quantum~philosophically refer as isoflux and QVF.

Our omnique coinage here arises from our research review of Lee Nichol's 2003 The Essential David Bohm.

Readers may observe that Doug's efforts here anticipated (retrospectively and retrochronically) Errol E. Harris' now 40+ year old comments on classical cybernetics' mechanical 'analogues' of 'conception,' vis-à-vis complementaroception. Doug - 28Jan2007.

More simply, complementaroception is how quantum~stages' quantum~straddlings 'perceive.'

Doug - 1Jul2006, 28Jan2007, 23Aug2007.

Index

 See above.

In a sensory perspective, 'ception' is afflux where 'spection' is more like efflux. Crudely, looking 'out' is 'spection,' and looking 'in' is 'ception.'

However, notice that 'introspection' asks us to outwardly look into ourselves. Notice comparatively how 'inspect' asks us to 'in' 'spect' outwardly an object which is 'external.' Is English language problematic? You bet! Classically 'spect' tends, usually, to imply visual efflux, efference. Classically, 'cept' tends, usually, to imply visual afflux, afference. Doug used to use an architectural acronym, APE. For Doug, it means Afference, Process, Efference. It is a more biological way of thingking about Input, Process, Output.

Complementarospection is an individual perspicacity of both self and self's quantum~complement.

For more detail, see Doug's efforts on quantum~gn¤stic revelation (in a sense of revealing nature's secrets).

Doug - 23Aug2007.

Index

Coined quantumese for obsolete classical 'context.' Quantum comtexts have n¤n Aristotelian ihncludæd~mihddles vis~à~vis classical SOM 'contexts' whose excluded | middles are purely Aristotelian syllogistic, i.e., A is not both A and not A. As we have shown in our Aristotle Connection, quantum comtexts aræ b¤th A amd n¤t A.

Quantonic~quantum comtexts may c¤mmingle, c¤mpænetratæ, amd c¤ihnsihdæ thæmselves amd ¤næ an¤thær.

Iht sh¤uld bæ abumdantly clæar t¤ studænts ¤f Quantonics that quantum comtexts aræ what wæ cahll ræhlihty. They aræ ahlways quantum ihslandihc, which mæans they aræ ahlways b¤th lisr amd n¤nlisr. Comtextuahlly wæ may dæscrihbæ thæm l¤cahlly. But whæn wæ ¤ffer that partial quantum dæscrihpti¤n iht issi ahlways wihth awaræness that ræhlihty's full quantum comtext issi b¤th m¤re amd less affæcting that 'l¤cal' comtext.

Ræhlihty issi quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty). Ræhlihty issi quantons(DQ,SQ). Any quanton issi quantons(n¤nahctualihty,ahctualihty), etc.

Thus whæn wæ quantum explihcihtly dæscrihbæ a quanton ihn ihts quantum comtext, wæ aræ dæscrihbing ihts ænsehmble quantum ihnterrelati¤nships wihth ihts quantum c¤mplæmæntary ¤thær quantons ihn quantum ræhlihty. Further, amd this issi a m¤st ¤mnihffihcult ashpæct ¤f umdærstamding Quantonics' værsi¤n ¤f quantum ræhlihty, th¤se ihnterrelati¤nships thæmselves aræ quantons.

This quantonics mæans amd m¤dalings ¤f think-king sh¤ws us that:

S¤ whæn wæ speak ¤f an "explihciht quantum comtext" wæ aræ speaking ¤f anihmatæ EIMA quantum ihnterrelati¤nships: quantons.

Index Also see Con-

Quantonic quantumesque analogue of classical convene.

Where classical excluded | middle dichons convene, Quantonic quantons comvæne. Ihncludæd~mihddle quantons c¤mmingle, c¤mpænetratæ, amd c¤ihnsihdæ, i.e. whæn wæ gather thæm t¤gether they d¤ n¤t convene, rather they comvæne. Index Also see Con-

This is a classical SOMitic prefix. It is one of SOM's many biformal, objective linguistic knives.

In its original Latin, linguistic intent was for 'con-' and 'com-' to have similar semantics; however, it has n¤t evolved that way in English. Some do n¤t , and many uses of 'con-' as a prefix today carry an objective and divisive (binary join, excluded | middle join, Sheffer stroke, etc.) tenor. Our intent is to say that, in general, we see 'con-' as a linguistic tool of SOM to retain its objective hegemony on Western culture. We want to deny that biformal, schismatic, dichotomous hegemony by substituting 'com-' for 'con-.' This substitution offers an initially n¤nhabihtual lingual exercise for Quantonics students who want to extract themselves from SOM's logical prison.

Exegesis:

Quantum ræhlihty has n¤ SOM objects, i.e., iht has n¤ dichons. Quantum ræhlihty has quantons. As dichons 'con-' (i.e., separate, isolate, argue dialectically, oppose, etc.) other dichons, quantons 'com-' (i.e. ihnterpænetratæ; c¤mpænetratæ, ihncludæd~mihddle c¤mmingle, etc.) ¤thær quantons.

Ihn ¤ur n¤vel Quantonics languagæ, ihn genæral, wæ shahll sub_qstihtute 'com-' f¤r 'con-' amd rather than dæfihning ahll n¤vel 'com-' tærms wæ læave iht t¤ studænts ¤f Quantonics t¤ makæ apr¤pos sub_qstihtuti¤ns ihn their w¤rks. E[amples ¤f 'com-' tærms appæar ab¤ve. Sææ ¤ur Quantonics English Language Remediation for Millennium III.

Other e[amples aræ 'comsistent,' 'comtradiction,' 'comventional,' 'comtort,' etc. Alm¤st ahll 'com-' prefixes ihn English ræceihve 'c¤m-' ræmædiati¤n ihn quantum comtexts.

Doug, what about concept, perspect, and conspect? Læt's usæ a table t¤ sh¤w h¤w Quantonics vihews th¤se tærms hærmænæutihcahlly ihn quantum ræhlihty:

Throw away SOM's knife! Do you want to be conned by SOM's Church of Reason any more? Doug. Index