Jun2000 

What are some other specific problems with English language? What problems can we identify which will help us develop a new language for Millennium III?

Reader note: This work is 'in progress.' Expect to see regular changes to our series of QQAs which started in May, 2000. This work will be foundation effort, especially a list of candidate 'requirements' for a new English language replacement or alternate for Millennium III. A new replacement will n¤t be a language per se, rather it will be something like a heuristic and semiotic hermeneutics whose constituents are quantons.

Last month, reader, you may recall that we arrived at these conclusions:

1) "Is English language innately SOMitic?"

Simply, we answer, "Yes, indubitably yes!" and

2) "How can we decide whether SOMitic language is problematic for Millennium III?"

"Simply by stating that Western culture's English language and its assumptions and its innate axiom set are incapable of describing and relating quantum reality for its practitioners! Why? Because quantum reality's basal constituents are n¤t dialectical subjects and objects! Quantum reality is n¤t a dialectical reality!"

Our May, 2000 QQA answers above point to more problems we can identify which will help us develop a new language for Millennium III.

But Doug, "What do you mean by saying, 'Quantum reality is n¤t a dialectical reality!'?"

Well reader, you just asked a cogent question which points directly at one of many English language problems we need to identify. Good!

First, we mean, "In general, quantum reality is n¤t a dialectical reality." SOM and its formal languages like English specifically choose to look at static, spatial aspects of quantum reality while ignoring quantum reality's very dynamic, nonspatial aspects. SOM created its dialectical reality based upon its blindered self-delusion that static, spatial aspects of quantum reality are whole reality, i.e., SOM thinks static/spatial is all there is to reality. It also thinks all static/spatial constituents are Aristotelian, excluded middle classical objects!

For just a while longer, let's allow ourselves a luxury of avoiding any detail discussions of quantum reality. Later, through our struggle and process of invention and innovation we will begin to show you some possible quantum aspects of an English language replacement in next month's July, 2000 QQA.

So quantum reality is n¤t a dialectical reality...

Given that assumption, let's ask another question. "What is a dialectical reality?"

An easy answer is "SOM models a dialectical reality." But we want and need more memes and concepts to understand what that means.

(A 'dialectic reality' is essentially a SOM reality, and we discuss that to great length elsewhere in our Quantonics site. If you want another source, read Pirsig's, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.)

So to commence a process of understanding, let's answer a simpler question. "What is dialectic reasoning?"

We know from our discussion last month, that our SOMitic English language uses dialectic reasoning, indeed its linguistic axioms require dialectical reasoning (see our May, 2000 QQA).

Let's use what we call an H5W approach, i.e., how, why, what, who, when, and where on dialectical reason. To do that, let's examine this list of questions: What is dialectical reason? What does dialectical reason assume? Why do we use dialectical reason? When/where does dialectical reason work? Who uses dialectical reason? How do they use dialectical reason? (Reader, please view our H5Ws below as preliminary. They will evolve as we learn more.)

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

What is
dialectical reason?

"Indeed, Bohm believes that our almost universal tendency to [dialectically, analytically] fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness of all things is responsible for many of our problems, not only in science but in our lives and our society as well." Michael Talbot in his, The Holographic Universe, p. 49 of 338 total pages Harper paperback. (Our brackets.)

As we shall see dialectic is a means of ideal oppositive thought bivalency. Dialectic is a tool for alienation. Dialectic alienates all which does not fit a particular view. Dialectic insists its adherents must abide concrete-stoppable-monism (OSFA) as their classical, catholic, universal, totalitarian method of thingking. Doug - 7Jan2009.

Attic Dialect

"Ancient Greek dialect that was the language of ancient Athens. Its closest relative was the Ionic dialect of Euboea. With the ascendance of the Athenian empire in the course of the 5th century BC, Attic became the most prestigious of the Greek dialects and as a result was adopted later as the standard language by the Macedonian kings. Moreover, it became in Hellenistic times the language of the Macedonian rulers in the Middle East and Egypt. This later phase of Attic is called Koine, a dialect common to all Greeks.

"In literature, Attic is the dialect of Athenian comedy and, interspersed with Doric lyric elements, of tragedy. In the second half of the 5th century BC, it also became the dialect of Greek prose, not only for such Athenian writers as Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Lysias, Isocrates, and Demosthenes but also for foreigners such as the orator and Sophist Gorgias of Leontini (Sicily). During the Roman period, prose writers such as Plutarch and Lucian were Atticists: they preferred to use the classical Attic dialect of the 5th and 4th centuries BC, rather than the spoken Koine of their own time."

From Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003
under heading Attic Dialect

From Doug's Quantonic perspective, Western Greco-Roman dialectic has become Earth's most pervasive Tragedy of Commons. That is why we are Quantum~Remediating English Language!

Any¤næ wh¤ uhsæs dialectic issi ihnnatæly n¤t ¤mniscrihbing quantum ræhlihty!

Doug - 6Apr2004.

More...

"The lunatic is the man who lives in a small world but thinks it is a large one; he is the man who lives in a tenth of the truth, and thinks it is the whole. The madman cannot conceive any cosmos outside a certain tale or conspiracy or vision. Hence the more clearly we see the world divided into Saxons and non-Saxons, into our splendid selves and the rest, the more certain we may be that we are slowly and quietly going mad. The more plain and satisfying our state appears, the more we may know that we are living in an unreal world. For the real world is not satisfying. The more clear become the colors and facts of Anglo-Saxon superiority, the more surely we may know we are in a dream."

by Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936),
British author of Charles Dickens, 'Dickens and America,' 1906.

"A dialectician is one who lives in a small world but thinks it is a large one; a dialectician is one who lives in a tenth of truth, and thinks it is whole. Dialectical madness cannot conceive any cosmos outside a certain tale (e.g., any dialectical state, union, religion, mathematics, science, etc.) or conspiracy (e.g., catholic inquisition, Baath Husseinism, etc.) or vision. Hence more clearly we see a di-alectical world di-vided intwo "either infidels or non-infidels," intwo EITHER our splendid selves OR our complementary 'infidel' many, thus more certain we may be that we are slowly and quietly going mad. As more plain and satisfying our state appears, more we may know that we are living in an unreal world. For any real world issi n¤t classically nation-state-union-status-quo inertially-simplistically-satisfying, rather it is quantum~flux~(un)satisfying: always changing and changing all. As more clear become any colors and facts of di-alectical superiority, more surely we may know we are in a wholly proselytized and classically deign-to-feign-designed di-alectical dream."

Paraphrased by Doug Renselle - 11Apr2004
to uncloak dialectic's vulgar, base, and inhumane ugliness.

Doug - 11Apr2004.

End Attic Dialectic.

1. It is specific. Most tragic of all, it routinely bootstraps specificity as genericity.
   
   (I.e., it is n¤t general. By axiom, it specifically discusses only subjects and objects with innate aversion of former and dedicated worship of latter as 'substantial,' thus state-ic/stable, immutable, and thus classically real. We showed you last month how English language depends upon a specific and architecturally rigid/stable axiom set to maintain and preserve a standard linguistic convention. That rigid specificity keeps English language practitioners in SOM reality's SOM box. This dialectic specificity is an English language 'disabler' as a linguistic communication tool for describing a general quantum reality. When we attempt to use inanimate English to describe animate quantum reality, our new quantum memes become ambiguous. Why? In general, English language's conventional, specific, stable architecture creates its own mythos, and that mythos is its own 'Church of Reason,' its own 'linguistic prison,' its own conventional trap. Worse, its architecture is n¤t generally extensible. Why? Because its constituents and linguistic ontology are classically objective and thus classically, self-delusionally, tautologous.)
   
   Quantum vis-à-vis classical 'mythos' link added...Clarifying note: SOM's mythos/church/prison/trap/convention is a classical disabler, incapable of describing animate quantum realities' comstituents (i.e., quantons) without referring them objectively. But quantons are n¤t (see also n¤t) classical objects.
   
   

   Aside on our plural use of "quantum realities':"

   Quantum reality is both plural and singular, and both heterogeneous and homogeneous, and both variably-persistent-static/inanimate (see QVP) and preferentially dynamic/animate — see Pirsigean vis-à-vis Bergsonian Perspectives of monism and pluralism — we say this, paraphrasing Mae-wan Ho as, "Quantum reality is cohesive multiplicities of both cohesive and autonomous quantons."

   
   Imposing classical dialectical objectivity on quantons results in classical communication ambiguity in any descriptions of quantum reality. Classically objectifying realities' quantons pares their quantum c¤mplementary Value and discards it as CTM paralogical detritus! This is what Niels Bohr, et al., meant when they said, "We are immersed in language," and "our only way to eliminate ambiguity is to adhere strict classical rules." Now we can see how Bohr's solution just put us back in SOM's box/trap/prison/church/mythos. Poor solution, Niels! Instead, we need a new quantum language for Millennium III! 16May2001, Doug.
   
   How does classical English language educe classical communication ambiguity via its usage of dialectical reason? It isn't real. It isn't quantum real! Why? Classical English language is 'state-mental.' That is a classical fact! Recall Aristotle's apple allegory. Aristotle's reality is classically, dialectically stoppable: state 1, period of 'rest,' event 1 (process classically undescribed, and due dialectical 'reason,' undescribable zero latency transition); state 2, period of 'rest,' event 2, and so on...
   
   There are n¤ classical 'states' in quantum reality. All issi flux, semper fluxio, all issi quantum processings! All is quantum essence! Quantum language issi n¤t statemental! It issi animate~process~mental: we call it a quantum stage. It issi QTMic. It issi REIMAR reasoning. During 2006 Doug coined phasement as a quantum remediation of classical 'statement.' Too, see our QELRs of phase and state. Doug - 26Jun2007.
   
   Here are some recent 2004-2005 pages (some very recently updated) and links which may help you better understand how quantum process thinking is vastly better than naïve classical dialectic.
   
   See: Bases of Judgment, duration, intelligence, judgment, logic, reality, reason, science, stop, thinking, truth, uncertainty, etc. (Those links will lead you to many others.)
   
2. It is dichotomous, schismatic, bifurcative, centric, biformal, binary alternative denial (bad; Sheffer stroke) reason.
3. It divides decision outcomes into two either/or possibilities: true or false. ('Mu,' tertium non datur, and paradice are outcomes which may occur, but are usually either labeled 'false,' or 'subjective phenomena.')
4. It is biformal reason based on Aristotelian substance. (See Aristotle's syllogistic 'laws.' Also see Aristotle's Categories, esp. Chapter 4.)
5. It is a source of subject-object, mind-body, etc., dichotomies.
6. It is unilogical, homological reason (thus, One Global Truth fits all.)
7. It is closed reason. (From whence: homogeneous reality, conservation, monism, immutability (other than motion via homogeneous time), analytic determinism, induction, reduction/infinite-divisibility, cause and effect, denial of free will, etc.)
8. It is analytic reason.

 What does dialectical
reason assume?

1. It assumes ONE global convention for all reasoning.
   
   (We call this "One Global Truth, or OGT." It sees conventional consensus as only means of reaching global agreement on any objective question. A major purpose of English language is to provide an unambiguous lingual communication capability to do this. All participants must adhere this convention or chance being labeled 'heretic' or even worse, 'insane.' It disallows pluralism or an alternative of many conventions. "Think as we think, or we will declare you outside our mythos!" Note that OGT carries with it an inference and implication of One Global Context, or OGC. This shows us what philosophers mean by 'monism.' For classical monists OGT in OGC is utopia! Ugh! They call it immutable, "Perfection! Perfect classical oneness!" Double-ugh! If you suffer this malady, allow us to suggest a cure: read William James' Some Problems of Philosophy.)
   
   
2. It ideally assumes it can decide absolute truth based on objective reason.
3. It assumes objective reason depends upon and refers Aristotelian substance.
4. It assumes subjective reason is invalid.
5. It assumes classical dialectical negation is objective. (However we can show classical negation is, rather, subjective. And thus crux: we see now, ever so vividly how, in general, dialectical reason is invalid!)
6. (Since it does n¤t work — indeed it is invalid — in general,) It assumes some answers may be nonabsolute (i.e., unknown, or mu, tertium non datur, and paradoxical.)

Why do we use
dialectical reason?

1. It is Western culture's current de facto method of reason.
2. It is fast and efficient. It is easy to use. We are trained to use it.
3. It appears to work specifically, although n¤t generally, in our current global convention.
4. It fits an Aristotelian/Newtonian/classical ontology, metaphysics, and philosophy.
   
   (It does n¤t fit quantum reality. Irving Stein suggests there is no quantum ontology, metaphysics, and philosophy at Millennium III's start, and that is a major problem. Dr. Stein suggests in his book, The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics, that Western society must start now to develop a new exegetic and exoteric quantum ontology, metaphysics, and philosophy for Millennium III.)

 When/where does
dialectical reason work?

1. It works specifically, but n¤t generally in classicism's assumed global objective, non-subjective convention.
2. It works in a single, monistic Church of Reason (its own chosen convention).
3. It works when its propositions' subjects and predicates
   refer 'real,' conventional, substance-based objects. (It is important to note that it does n¤t work directly on 'real' objects to which it refers, e.g., what is negative 'you?' What difference(s) do you acquire when you subtract Jenny from Judy? Horse minus elephant, etc. What is 'not' you? Is Doug not you? Is a tiger not you? Is 'empty' or 'null' not you? Is 'you an hour from now' still you, or not you, or evolved you? If only your eye color were changed, would you still be you? When a new-born's blue eyes change to brown over first several months of its life, is it still itself?)
4. It works only when change is based on homogeneous time. (Note that homogeneous analytic time fundamentally disavows evolution, novel emergence, and any in-form-ation of 'new.')

 Who uses
dialectical reason?

1. Classicists.
2. Almost all ISMs of category 'SOM.' (Subject-Object
   Metaphysics.)
3. Classical physicists.
4. Classical mathematicians.
5. Most philosophers.
6. Most bourgeois and proletariat.
7. Almost all folk of Western ilk. (Very, very interestingly both SOMites and CRites use dialectical reason. Outcome? See our view of what happens. Also see our new table comparing SOM, CR, and MoQ/quantum philosophies.)

 How do they use
dialectical reason?

1. To solve dialectical problems.
2. To solve ethical problems.
3. To solve moral problems.
4. To solve political problems.
5. To carry on normal discourse in many Western languages, including English.

So, by now reader, you have a lot of ammunition to use in a process of discovery about what is problematic with English language. Each problem listed above offers us a Chautauqua of discovery toward a knowable quantum soluble.

Note that in our first what above, our last item is "dialectic reason is analytic reason." So your next query might be, "Doug, what is analytic reason?" Let's repeat our H5W process on analytic reason.

What is
analytic reason?

1. It is objective.
2. It is unilogical.
3. It is homological.
4. It is monistic.
5. Etc.

 What does analytic
reason assume?

1. It assumes reality is an objective whole continuum.
2. Given (1) it assumes reality is continuous and homogeneous.
3. Reality is mathematical: symbolic objects constitute reality.
4. Reality is differentiable. (Analysis.)
5. Reality is integrable. (Synthesis.)
6. Change/motion is a function of homogeneous time (one global time).
7. Reality is closed. (J.C. Maxwell's three thermodynamic laws.)
8. Given (7) it assumes reality conserves.
9. Objects in analytical reality are y=f(t).
10. Analytic objects obey Aristotle's three syllogisms.
11. Reality is deterministic.
12. Reality is inductive.
13. Reality is uni-conventional, and thus may be described by one global set of laws. It assumes one pre-existing and discoverable (a la Plato) set of real laws fits all! Those who discover and wield those laws may understand, manipulate
    and control analytic reality.
14. Mae-wan Ho, in her interpretation of Henri Louis Bergson's philosophy, says it like this: "Analytic reality is an infinitely divisible homogeneity."
15. Etc.

 Why do we use
analytic reason?

1. It adheres Parmenidean, Platonic, Socratic, and Aristotelian memes from over two millennia past.
2. Western culture teaches, trains, and now almost intuits it.
3. It aligns well our biformal nature (two brain lobes, two arms, legs, lungs, testes, etc.)
4. It works well in a purely objective world. Indeed, our scientific progress would n¤t have achieved nearly as much without it.
5. It is specific, fast, and efficient.
6. It is n¤t:
   1. General.
   2. Capable of describing quantum reality.
   3. Capable of describing reality's miracle of life.
   4. Capable of describing phenomena. Etc.
7. Etc.

 When/where does
analytic reason work?

1. It works as long as we assume reality is purely objective. See our list of assumptions above.
2. It works as long as we use formal notation, e.g.: English language (or any objective language), mathematics, formal propositional logic, etc. Pirsig would say, "It works as long as we stay in Western culture's 'Church of Reason.'"
3. Etc.

 Who uses
analytic reason?

1. Most philosophers.
2. Most metaphysicians.
3. Most scientists.
4. Nearly all mathematicians.
5. All classical engineers.
6. All classical thinkers.
7. Most of Western culture.
8. Some Eastern cultures are partially adopting it.
9. Etc.

 How do they use
analytic reason? 

How do they use
analytic reason?

1. To solve problems in objective reality.
2. To describe reality based on formal concepts.
3. To communicate 'unambiguously' among conventional practitioners of analytic reason.
4. To decide what is true or false.
5. To ascertain 'objective contradiction' and thus 'disprove' false conjectures.
6. To call that which is 'objectively false,' "absurd, nonsense, unreasonable, contradictory, etc."
7. To retain hegemony, mostly via ridicule, straw men, over Western cultural thought.
8. To say things to fellow sentients like this:
   
   D  "Be rational."
   D  "Be logical."
   D  "Be objective."
   D  "Be 'reasonable.'"
   D  "That's nonsense!"
   D  "That's impossible!"
   D  "You're insane!"
   D  "You're out of the box!"
   D  "You'd be better off to get on our page."
   D  "It is critical for us to be on the same page."
   D  "You're being ridiculous!"
   D  "Ignore subjective stuff."
   D  "There is no natural Good!"
   D  "There is no such thing as evolution!"
   D  "Our world was created perfectly and it never changes...except for analytic
         motion."
   D  "If it is not substantial, it just is not!"
   D  "Do not be emotional."
   D  "Do not be a sophist."
   D  "Do not be a relativist."
   D  "Do not be absurd."
   D  "There really is absolute truth, you know, and we can tell you what it is."
   D  "Status quo is the way to go."
   D  "You'd better believe as we do, or we'll have you fixed!"
   
   
9. Etc.

Well, as you may deign or concur, we have an enormous list of H5Ws about both dialectical and analytical reasoning from which we may derive a list of innate English language problems which need a cure in order for us to survive imminent quantum tsunami changes in Millennium III.

If you feel unsated, that is probably good for we have only scratched a surface of English language's many problems.

Also, dialectical and analytical reason are n¤t Western culture's only techniques. Another popular, but oft denigrated method of reason is worthy of our consideration: rhetorical reason. We plan to do an H5W on rhetorical reason during next month's QQA.

Too, there are many other problems with how users of English language reason and communicate. We will list a few of them here to give you some idea of their breadth and scope:

• Innate incapability to define semantics for quantum reality.
• Incapability of valid, general descriptions of physical reality.
• Dependence upon a static, objective pre-existence. (Words like 'discovery.')
• Incapability to demonstrate or resolutely describe objective absoluteness.
• Innate blindness to dynamic absoluteness and concomitant uncertainty.
• Innate proclivity to spawn paradice and inexplicables.
• Innate anthropocentrism.
• Foundation on indefinables.
• Tendency toward thelogos.
• Hierarchical inversion of nature's evolvables and precedents, and
• Hierarchical inversion of nature's quantitative vis-à-vis qualitative facets, leading to its
  • Inverted preferential proclivities:
    • monism over pluralism
    • homogeneity over heterogeneity
    • truth over change
    • stasis over dynamis
    • either/or over both/and
    • excluded-middle (disjunction) over included-middle (compenetration)
    • quantity over quality
    • dialectic over rhetoric
    • classicism over sophism
    • objectivity over subjectivity
    • matter over mind
    • failure as a dead-end over failure as enlightenment (e.g., in 'proof')
    • etc.
• Predominate incapability to understand profound meaning and impact of Bell's, Gödel's, Foulis', et al.'s, theories and their results.
• Cultural relativism's innate incapability to alter post modern linguistics to describe quantum reality. Doug says, "Any self-proclaimed relativism which is unilogical is innately n¤t a relativism. Any self-proclaimed relativism which is intracontextually unilogical and thus incommensurable is incapable of describing quantum reality. Any unilogical ISM is innately incapable of describing quantum reality."
• English language cannot express what we in Quantonics mean by 'c¤mplementary antitheses.'
• English language is almost always ambiguous in its descriptions of quantum reality.
• English language is innately pugilistic, antagonistic, oppositional, contradictory, and so on...
•  
• etc.

Even without considering quantum reality and its change impetus for Millennium III, English language is innately incapable of describing and relating even classical reality among its practitioners. English language is a language of a dying Newtonian ontology, metaphysics and science. Even if we wanted to stay in classical reality, English language in general, fails! If our goal is to describe and relate physical reality, then English language does n¤t work, folks! When we use English language, we are describing and relating apparitions n¤t of reality's nature.

Next month we shall continue, and begin a look at one alternative which we favor.

We really appreciate your patronage and your interest in our work.

Thanks for reading,

Doug.