This is our year 2003 editorial Go directly to 2003 News Please re-read this: for your preparation to read our August News available 1Sep2003.

"The things that will destroy America are: prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, love of soft living, and get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican politician, president. Letter, 10Jan1917. "The whole history of civilisation is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards." ('Homeland ~Security;' 'The Patriot Act') "Under a Presidential government, a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns." "A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official members, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind; it overdoes the quantity of government, as well as impairs its quality. The truth is, that a skilled bureaucracy . . . is, though it boasts of an appearance of science, quite inconsistent with the true principles of the art of business." (Doug's bold and color.) "One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea." (Virtual threat begs virtual defense.) Doug's parentheticals. Walter Bagehot (1826-77), English economist, editor of renowned Economist, critic. Physics and Politics, ch. 2, sct. 3 (1872). The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993 Honestly, these are Bagehot quotes with which we agree. Bagehot importuned countless classical either/or concepts of war and national conflict with which we have quantum-heuristically learned to hermeneutically disagree. Doug - 2Feb2003 ... We ask you, readers and students of Quantonics, to compare these two world views and choose one or invent another which you believe is better for Millennium III: A quantum world view offers a (John Forbes) Nash equilibrium win-win of both cooperation and n¤ncooperation/defense with multiversal respect for individual cultural omniversity. A classical world view offers a hegemonist, status quo, one-size-fits-all, lose-lose oppositive mutual denial: "our way or the highway," Neandertalibanic/Ruby Ridge/Waco disrespect for acultural mores (i.e., "you are outside our culture"). Borrowed from legacy text in our Coined Quantonics Terms description of obsfect.

November, 2003 News:

2003-2004 Feuilleton Installment:		October, 2003	November, 2003	December, 2003	January, 2004	February, 2004	March, 2004
		a prerequisite to:		a prerequisite to:	a prerequisite to:	a prerequisite to:

Move to any Installment of our feuilleton Chautauqua
( says, "You are here!")

One more month to 2004... What a ride... Oregon is dek and fab...

Why are we doing this quantum feuilleton Chautauqua?

We want, from a Quantonics quantum perspective, to omnistinguish, omnifferencings, omnivalencies, and omnifluxings among:

• classical individualism
• classical socialism
• quantum individualism
• quantum socialism

We have been under not-so-subtle pressure from students, since Quantonics' very beginnings, to do this, and ~finally here we are. This work is huge! It will take our students many hours of study to come abreast of our efforts. Do not shy! Tackle it. Rewards are countless and Value-added is palpable.

Notice our uses of two terms above and from our previous month's (October's) News: individualism and socialism. We need to ask and attempt to answer many questions about those two terms. Let's use November's (this) feuilleton Chautauqua to ask a series of questions and start a list of answers and observations regarding them:

1. What is an individual and what do we mean by individualism? (either-or individual? both-and society? mu?)
2. What is a society and what do we mean by socialism? (either-or society? both-and individual? mu?)
3. Are individuals and societies natural organizations and if so, how does quantum nature appear to create, grow, change, diminish, and discreate individuals and societies?
4. How may we omnistinguish among individuals and societies which are more natural and those which may be less natural?
5. Are quantum individuals and societies more natural than classical individuals and societies?

During October's feuilleton installment (a prerequisite for this installment), we developed some quantum-remediated Pirsigean SP¤Vs amd ass¤ciated QELR v¤cabulary. Now in our November, 2003 installment we want to provide a shallow start on those four bullet items above and that list of questions. To do those we need more vocabulary, especially two co(n)mparative, classical vis-à-vis quantum vocabularies. Allow us to make a minimal table, of terms we need for our November feuilleton installment, co(n)mparing terms we need to describe omnifferencings among classical and quantum analogues of individualism and socialism. Readers, unless you are familiar with our QELR dictionary, should review these terms in preparation for what is to follow. We shall offer terms with brief con(m)textual descriptions:

©Quantonics, Inc. 2003-2009
Classical Term	Classical Description	Quantum Term	Quantum Description
absolute	truth is absolute semper fi	abs¤lute	changæ issi abs¤lute semper flux
action	y=f(t) action is y's objective unitemporal posentropic motion f(t) is classically analytic, deterministic, causal, 1-1 correspondent one global time fits all classical actions	pragmafluxings	any quanton issi abs¤lute changings all quantons aræ ensehmbles ¤f anihmatæ, heter¤gene¤us, EIMA, quantum n¤mbæred ihnterrelati¤nships quantons' bæhavi¤rs aræ quantum c¤¤bsfective ensehmble st¤chastic (acausal, n¤nanalytic, n¤ndeterministic, nonlisr, massively ensehmble c¤rrelative)
add	synthetic analytic integration classical sums are manufacturable classical sums are reproducible (Key question here: What is reproduction? (Students of Quantonics, that link is crucial to understanding our feuilleton Chautauqua efforts. See page 13 comments at that link. Also Google search on <Quantonics+Creative Evolution+reproduction>) Omnifferentiate mechanical reproduction thence biological reproduction. Which is more quantum? Why? What is synergy? Is mechanical reproduction synergetic? Why? Why not? Is biological reproduction synergetic? Why? Why not? What is quantum production? What do we mean by quantum emerscenture vis-à-vis classical reproduction? Why is an included-middle emersenturable when an excluded-middle is not? Dichons are reproducible. Quantons are non reproducible. Why? H5W?)	superp¤se	emergent ensehmble EIMA mixings ¤f arbitrary spacings-tihmings distributi¤nings b¤th with amd with¤ut: ihnterference lisr-n¤nlisr c¤hera entr¤pa gradihents etc. quantum mihxings aræ anihmatæ emerscenturings quantum superp¤siti¤nings aræ emerscenturable
analytic	radical mechanism, radical formality, radical finality, stoppability, lisrability, predicability,	memetic	viral/metaph¤ric/OEDC/changæ-bæaring quantum n¤ti¤nalilty quantons aræ memetic
and	classically 'and' is nonsynergistic objective conjunction see transformation	amd	see and
architecture	classical architecture is objective, analytic architected buildings, except for intrinsic aging of materials, are incapable of morphing, and self awareness and self-morphing; they are essentially, classically 'stuck' structures classical architecture assumes reality is ideally stoppable	emerscitecture	see emerscitecture
cause	all classical events are caused by analytic, determinate, 1-1 correspondent effects classical cause is: both inductive finite historical evidence putatively 'predicts' future and deductive, finite and local historical facts putatively solve problems globally-generally both analytic reality is objectively lisr reality may be objectively disassembled (differentiability) and synthetic reality is objectively lisr reality may be objectively assembled (integrability) cause drives out conscious awareness and choice while denigrating latter as "heresy" classical causation postpones and retards judgment to retrospect as Clifford Geertz says in his Available Light, "absolutism removes judgment from history," and regarding culturally relativistic causation, "relativism disables judgment" (If reality is really classically causal, why do 'accidents' only happen sometimes?) (If reality is really classically causal, how can reality be ideally objectively independent? Classical causation demands strict monotemporal, 1-1 correspondent non objective (i.e., non independent) dependence! (We assume classical negation in our usage of non.) How can an ideally classical objective reality manufacture dependent causation? - Doug.)	affectati¤n	quantons quantum ensehmble select "whatings happenings nextings" quantons aræ quantum ensehmble ch¤¤sings "whatings happenings nextings" quantons quantum ensehmble affect "whatings happenings nextings," amd thus can quantumly amd radically-st¤chastically redirect any classical historical retroflective-apparently-causal-dependencies with abs¤lute (quanton(nonlocal,local) with emphasis on quantum locality of free will; viz. quantum locality here as kin of mode of quantum likelihood omnistributions; see our 3D Fuzzon) quantum free will quantons aræ c¤¤bsfectively self- amd ¤ther-aware quantum affectati¤n advances quantum jihudgment t¤ n¤wings all quantons c¤¤bserve amd c¤¤bsfect their sens¤ry bandwidth's ensehmble prec¤nditi¤nings amd select what tentatively appears bætter t¤ them (in Quantonics, based upon Pirsig's tutelage, we call this "quantum moral choice;" this notion will recur endlessly in our multi-month feuilleton Chautauqua; it is a crucial meme for omnistinguishing better among classical individual and society and quantum individual and society) th¤se quantum c¤mposite quantonic v¤ting pr¤cessings aræ ch¤¤sings, both affectihvely amd qualitatively realihty's nextings ensehmblings ¤f "whatings happenings nextings" quantum~affectation issi up to Planck rate QLO quantum~subjunctive~ensemble a priori REIMAR QIG (n¤n CSG) aspirational QIC (n¤n DIQ) exigencyings apparently ihnsignificant quantons' affectati¤ns can have en¤rm¤us quantum umcærtain affects, e.g., quanton rubber O-ring quantum fluxors, especially temperature, amd Challenger disaster see quanta see meme¤ryings see MoQ I Reality Loop see quantum ontology
certain	'what happens next' is certain 'what happens next' is analytically predictable and determinate See certain, DIQ.	umcærtain	all ¤f self- amd ¤ther-aware realihty quantally amd up t¤ Planck rate ihncrementally ensehmble st¤chastically ch¤¤ses "whatings happenings nextings," s¤ ¤utc¤mings aræ always quantum umcærtain quantum umcærtainty issi cl¤se kin of Bergsonian durati¤n, Bell's ihnequalities, ihndeterminati¤n, amd "ihnexplicable accihdents" See uncertain, QIC.
change	classical change is unitemporal analytic motion Analytic motion is stoppable. Analytic motion is "movement via immobilities." Analytic motion is state, motion, state, motion, state,... Analytic motion is classically indescribable as process, since "process is not analyzable." Analytic motion is perpetual state-icity, and denies any notions of motion as perpetual process. 'Scientists,' most of them at Millennium III's commencement, consense absence of perpetual motion and try to 'outlaw' any memes of perpetual motion. Twidlows all... Our quotes are Bergsonian memeos. Doug - 19Aug2004.	changæ	see change Quantum reality issi perpetual change, perpetual flux, perpetual motion. Quantum reality always changes and changes all. Nature builds reality using perpetual motion quantons called variously, "protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, etc." See perpetual motion. Pendula, AKA fermions, quantum monitor quantum reality's perpetual motion. Click blue pendulum update box for specific text. See duration and monitor. Doug - 19Aug2004. Rev. 1Jun2005.
closed	classical reality is ideally closed and absolutely mass-energy conservative no new (previously 'nonexisting') mass or energy may be created in a classical, closed universe; mass may only be converted into energy and vice versa; total mass-energy is a classical constant	¤pen	see close
context	See OGC.	comtext	See comtext.
determine	classicists claim future events may be predicted thus determined	e[pect	quantumists claim future ævæntings aræ pr¤babilistic amd have pr¤bability distributi¤ns whose m¤de issi a bæst expectati¤n ¤r anticipati¤n ¤f any ævæntings thus all ævæntings, t¤ bæ quantum-c¤rrect, aræ umcærtain s¤me ævæntings' pr¤bability distributi¤ns may bæ unkn¤wn amd unkn¤wable See our What is Wrong with Probability as Value for extensive detail. Doug - 1June2005.
dialectic	see dialectical reason dialectical reason is like an intellectual Alzhimer's dis-ease Alzhimer's emplaques neurons dialectical reason emplaques thought and thing-king Doug - 19Aug2004	rhet¤ric	in Quantonics, rhet¤ric issi quantum reasonings
either-or	see either	b¤th-while-amd	see both
excluded-middle	see Aristotle	ihncluded-mihddle	see Aristotle
fact	see fact	hermeneutic	quantum realihty issi hermeneutic; quantum realihty issi heter¤gene¤usly c¤rrectly-ihnterpretable; as such iht issi pred¤minately affective, qualihtative, amd subjective amd ¤nly apparently effective, quantitative, and objective If Doug has a label, iht must bæ quantum hermeneuticist
false	see false see proof see Negation is Subjective see Is Proof by Contradiction Proof? classical falsifiability depends upon classical contradiction which depends upon classical objective negation; but negation is n¤t classically objective; negati¤n issi subjective easiest way to classically show negation is subjective is to experience Feynman's avatar of -1 = ei then realize that -1 is i and thence i = ei which is a recursive and thus subjective 'definition' of i in terms of itself, a quantum sophism, quantum self-reference students of Quantonics may now see a glaring exemplar of a need for our animate quantonics equals semiotic in place of that classical equals sign; too we need to replace that classical mechanical square root symbol with our quantonics animate EIMA quantum version:	negati¤n	see negate
general or specific	classicists take what appears general and make it specific by turning it into a 'law,' 'rule,' 'principle,' 'axiom,' corollary,' etc. classicists specify genericity; they analytically define generality; see SOM's Box; see law classicists call their notion of 'specificity' "general;" to them specific is general; this is one of classicism's greatest failures of thought classical specificity AKA definiteness values logically dichotomous thingking classical specific genericity is stoppable; classicists have no means of modeling durational process without stopping it, so classical genericity implies classical stoppability as an example social common sense is general and specifiable e.g., classicists refer drug clones and duals as 'generic'	b¤th genæral amd spæcihfihc	quantum genericity is unspecifiable, e.g., that which changes absolutely quantum genericity values omnivalent, holographic, heterogeneous, animate, EIMA, stochastic thinking quantum emergent change~process is unspecifiable; this is what Bergson means when he says process may not be analyzed any quanton's quantum cohera are quantum~genæral any quanton's quantum islandicity and autonomy are quantum~specihfihc quantum change is animately monitorable and quantum process m¤dalable see general
global	classicists see their 'proven' laws, rules, axioms, and principles as true globally see OGC	c¤herent	see coherent see cohera see entropa see quantum coherence - dwell here; brain soak here; allow your quantum stage's SONs to energy~well reorganize novel quantum memes, memeos, and memeotics - Doug - 9Jan2006 see Millennium III Map of Reality
homogneous	see homogeneous	heter¤geneous	see heterogeneous
idea	classical ideas are immutable and perpetual concepts see idea see concept	meme	memes are animate EIMA quantum thoughts which compenetrate and interfuse DQ with both thoughts and their ultimate significates this quantum notion is an axiomatic impossibility in classical reality; we call it "tapping reserve energy" and "It being in us and us being in It" a meme is a quanton of quantum thought "deep role playing" on a quantum stage memes are perpetually-changing quantons ihn Quantonicsese, "memes aræ pærpætually-changing quantons" see fact
immutable	see immutable	changing	see state, change, stoppability
independence	see independent see excluded-middle	ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤nships	see coinside, Bergson's classical delusions see included-middle
interactive	classical formal interactions are objective, with objects' middles excluded	ass¤ciative	quantum quantonic interrelationships are memetic with quantons' middles included via EIMA probability distributions of quantum flux
know-ledge	classical concepts and ideas are immutably static, pastistic, perpetual	meme¤ryings	quantum meme¤ryings aræ anihmatæly EIMA amd OEDC-ev¤lving amd -emerging; we view them as isobeing memes which may partially 'hide' yet quantum-comtinue their emergence in reserve energy students of Quantonics learn h¤w t¤ establish ihnterrelati¤nships with reserve energy's meme¤ryings Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide." via ihntenti¤nal emerqancy of EIMA quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships with Nature's meme¤ryings wæ partihally uncl¤ak (quantum measure; partially uncloak, desnouer) He-r Bergson tells us we must "...accustom ourselves to think being directly," and "...install ourselves within [He-r meme¤ry durationings] straight away." see affectation
local	classical reality is: localable isolable separable reducible see local	n¤nlisr	quantum reality issi: quantons(n¤nlocalable,apparently_localable) quantons(n¤nisolable,apparently_isolable) quantons(n¤nseparable,apparently_separable) quantons(n¤nreducible,apparently_reducible) those four bullets precedent (used as a verb) what we mean by n¤nlisr we are mixing con(m)texts in those four bullets for example apparently_localable may be replaced by our QELR'd l¤calable; ideal classical 'localability' is an apparition amd d¤es n¤t e[ist ihn quantum realihty
mechanical	Classical mechanics depends upon Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian, Newtonian concepts of material substance, objective reality, radical finalism, radical mechanism, formalism, etc. Classical logic is mechanical. Classical maths are mechanical. Predication and predicability are mechanical. see EPR's mechanics see mechanics	emerqant	Quantum reality is emerqant. Quantum reality is not classically mechanical.
object	see object see dichon see SOM Connection	quanton	see quanton see sobject
observe	classicists assume that reality is unilaterally observable classicists assume that observables 'hold still' while being observed classicists assume that observables are analytically and objectively independent of one another see observable	c¤¤bsfect	see obsfect
property	classicists assume that ideal classical objects have stable lisr properties which are state-ically measurable classicists assume that stable classical properties may be stoppably measured and captured as scalar numeric magnitudes classical objects 'own-possess' their enclosed properties classical objects' properties may mechanically EEMD 'interact' with properties of other classical objects see number	Value	from a Quantonics perspective, this is quantum reality's all-encompassing term from a Pirsigean perspective, this is his MoQ's all-encompassing term Pirsig's MoQ says reality iso Value iso Quality iso Good iso both DQ and SQ (as SPoVs) commingling one another in Quantonics' script we show it like this: quantum_realityValuequantons(DQ,SQ) quantum real Value expresses itself in SQ (SP¤Vs) via n¤nmechanical transemerqancies of quantum analogues of currently mechanical probability distributions and probabilities; a n¤vel quantum scripting 'language' must be invented to tentatively subsume this issue see OEDC see Map of a New Reality see MoQ I Reality Loop see MoQ II Reality Loop
quantity	see quantity	qualihty	see qualihty
rational	see rational	s¤phist	see Sophist Connection see What are Sophisms? see A College Student Asks For Help Sophisms? see coquecigrues
reason	see reason classical reason can take its form in a wide variety of ISMs most common agencies among various forms of classical reason are dialectic and society, and classical societal reason is cliche as 'positive' societal reason as positive, is a crucial issue for our feuilleton Chautauqua; it claims classical society reasons better than 'classical-minded' individuals one of our goals is to demonstrate that classical societal reason (a 'property' of S-SPoVs) is inadequate for Millennium III	reas¤n	see reason ihn Quantonics reas¤n issi quantum amd quantum reas¤nings aræ happenings ¤n y-¤ur quantum stages which naturally c¤mpenetrate amd tap reserve energy via everywhere-ihncluded-mihddle-ass¤ciativity, quantum tunneling, quantum n¤nl¤cality, quantum c¤herence, quantum superluminality, quantum superp¤siti¤nings ¤f all quantum abs¤lute flux, etc. quantum reas¤nings place quantum ihndihvihduals ab¤ve quantum s¤cieties; wæ explain ¤ur 'reas¤ns' f¤r this appr¤ach starting with feuilleton Chautauqua segment I (October, 2003 News); our 'reasons' are based on Robert M. Pirsig's inversion: from Object excluded-middle above Subject to Subject included-middle above Object ¤ne ¤f ¤ur g¤als issi t¤ sh¤w that quantum ihndihvihdual reas¤nings aræ ab¤ve classical societal reason amd that quantum s¤cietal reason issi an agent amd pr¤p¤nent ¤f quantum c¤hesive massively heter¤gene¤us quantum ihndihvihdual reas¤ning aut¤n¤mies (a la Mae-wan Ho)
stable	classical reality, except for analytic unitemporal objective motion, is stable Henri Louis Bergson, in his Creative Evolution claims that classicists suffer two delusions: reality is stable objects in reality are independent Semper stux	anihmate	see animate Semper flux
stop	Classical reality is stoppable. Classical time and space are stoppable. All classical measurables are stoppable. Semper stux.	g¤	Quantum reality is unstoppable. Quantum reality is absolutely animate. Semper flux.
subject	see SOM Assessment of Value see How SOMites View Reality	quanton	see quanton see Quanton Primer
truth	see truth	umcærtainty	see uncertainty

Though our table may appear comprehensive, it is n¤t! In general, countless other terms need comparison. Our QELR is in an emerging pr¤cess of accomplishing that. Specifically, though, what we need here is a smaller, working ensehmble of comparisons which will offer superficial — still and yet pedantic and pedagogic — semantic and hermeneutic means of making our comparisons and answering our questions. Too, we wish not to overwhelm our readers, especially those who may be just learning Quantonics. If you feel overwhelmed just now, take a look at our How to Become a Student of Quantonics. Also take a look at our suggestions for browsing this site. Most important, persist. Keep re-reading. Our quantum stages aræ quantum ass¤ciative EIMA quantum pragmah¤l¤graphic avatar¤ns (coined here 27Nov2003 - Doug) capable ¤f stindyanic emb¤diment ¤f alm¤st any n¤vel QTMs. C¤¤bsfective pattern repetiti¤n binds amd reinf¤rces y-¤ur memeoryings' quantum reserve energy ass¤ciati¤ns.

If you skipped our table, at least be sure to go back and carefully study our avatar (reembodiment) of classical cause as quantum affectati¤n. Also take a look at our commentary under false.

In our first, October, 2003, feuilleton installment we said we did n¤t want to talk about DQ in great detail yet. That still holds here, but we need to put our table of grammar and all of our QELR remediation work in a quantum DQ perspective before we proceed. Stindyanicity begs a quantum real BAWAM balancing of quanton(DQ,SQ). We have never done it or said it like this before here in Quantonics, amd n¤wings aræings G¤¤d tihmings f¤r d¤ings thatings.

Remember, in Quantonics realihty issi quantons(DQ,SQ). We use our graphic 'equalings' semiotic to show that analogously: realihtyquantons(DQ,SQ). In all our work here we are using both DQ and SQ grammatically, so we need to put some memetic (QTM; quantum thought) qualifications on our grammatical, written, lingual usages of them:

• DQ issi n¤t 'predicable'

That quantonic script is mixed con(m)textually. Our classical use of 'predicable' is in single quotes to tell you, our reader, that we want you to interpret its meaning, its classical semantic, classically. Those other three words are quantum comtextual. DQ issi absolute quantum isoflux, by memetic and empirical presumption. N¤ classical word n¤r classical symbol n¤r set of classical words n¤r classical symbols can 'predicate' n¤r 'capture' DQ's quantum essence. Why? Classical words and symbols 'analyze' and 'stop' DQ. But quantum DQ issi umst¤ppable. So our bullet issi saying also, "DQ issi absolute process, DQ issi memetic, n¤t 'analytic,' n¤t 'analyzable.'" Wæ aræ saying, "...that DQ may ¤nly bæ parthially quantum-SQ-stindyanically-descrihbed via quantum metaph¤rs, ihntuiti¤ns, ihnstincts, amd heuristic ihnferences." Plus as Heraclitus said 2500 years ago, "Nature loves to hide." Nature issi Quanton(Jekyll,Hyde). Quanton(wave,particle). Our bullet issi also saying "DQ issi n¤t 'stoppable.'" By inference and by quantonic avatar, quantum memes AKA quantons aræ n¤t 'stoppable.'

Our script shows us that DQ may n¤t be classically ESQ- 'predicated.' Our use of issi acknowledges DQ's absolute quantum animacy. Our use of n¤t acknowledges that quantum negation is subjective, which allows us to say, with QELR:

• DQ issi qualitatively, partially: quanton(hiding,uncloaked), quantum predihcable

"But, Doug, when we write words and sentences, aren't we creating SQ, and isn't that classical 'predication?'"

Yes, and SOM's, classicism's, Aristotle's, Newton's, Einstein's predication problem arises when they say, "That which is uncloaked is all there is. That which we have axiomatized in classical language is...all there is."

When we use classical words and CTM-interpret them classically, yes, that is predication. When we use QELR'd words and QTM-ihnterpret them quantumly, n¤! That is an exegesis of why we are offering our table and our QELR in stead of classical grammar and language.

• classical SQ is quantitatively predicable (all classical words are ideal dichonic objects with definite and definable properties)
• quantum SQ issi qualitatively predihcable (all quantum w¤rds aræ quantons with umcærtain amd anihmatæ ihnterrelati¤nships)

Allow us to offer an example which is as real as we can make it.

Classical Aristotelian syllogistic predication says (identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle):

• A is A
• A is not B
• A is not both A and not A

Allow us to make them classically real:

• chicken is chicken
• chicken is not human
• chicken is not both chicken and human

Allow us to make them quantum real:

• chicken issi b¤th chicken amd human

Aghast you ast, "How can our quantum script possibly be describing quantum reality? That's just plain nuts!"

A chicken's DNA is ~86% human! A human is, based on intracellular DNA mapping only, 0.86 chicken! Expressed as phenomes humans and chickens classically appear hugely "di fferent," but genetically they differ by only 14%, regardless what classical fundamentalists say. Apes match humans even more closely, genetically. Humans share at least some genetic (bionon) SP¤Vs with all known Earth life emerqants. John Gribbin describes finds of hemoglobin genetics in plants!

Aside:

Plants mixing with animals?

"By 1981, a meeting on evolution held at King's College in Cambridge came out loud and clear with the message that the genomes of higher organisms are in a state of dynamic change, with considerable rearrangement of the genes among the chromosomes being the norm on an evolutionary timescale, and perhaps being a driving force of evolution. It had become clear that just as human intervention using recombinant DNA techniques could take artificial genes and insert them into chromosomes, so viruses might transmit genes from one host to another during their own life cycle. This is straightforward enough to understand when a phage that has insinuated itself into a bacterium causes copies of itself to be manufactured and these copies invade other bacteria — a simple error could tag on a bit of bacterial DNA to the copy of the phage DNA. It is far more startling when evidence for this kind of sideways translation shows up in totally different species. At that meeting in Cambridge, Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University, drew attention to a protein called leghemoglobin, which is used by the plants known as legumes during nitrogen fixation. The gene for leghemoglobin looks very much like the gene for globin, an animal gene coding for the protein in hemoglobin. Jeffreys suggests that this animal gene was translocated into the ancestral form of the plant, relatively recently during evolution, as a passenger on a virus. And that possibility opens up dramatic evolutionary possibilities, even if it only occurs rarely." pp. 311-12, In Search of the Double Helix.

End aside.

We claim that QTMs and their QELR'd grammar and language are better than CTMs and their classical grammar and language. We claim we have demonstrated that betterness using quantum real exemplars.

How can we use our table? To better make those comparisons we introduced at top of this installment!

For example, is it better to treat species' individuals as classical phenome objects vis-à-vis quantum genome quantons? Notice we did n¤t ask our examplar question classically, e.g., "...is it right (or wrong) to treat individuals as either classical objects or quantum quantons?" Quantum reality asks us n¤t to assess 'absolute verity.' Iht asks us ¤nly t¤ assess bætter, amd while d¤ing s¤ realihze that bætter issi tentatihve while iht issi an agent ¤f ihts ¤wn emergence.

Now we want to apply October's groundwork, laying out a proposed evolution of Pirsigean SQ SPoVs into quantum SQ SP¤Vs, and this month's limited vocabulary comparison table t¤ prelihmihnarihly c¤mpare th¤se f¤ur bullet items amd t¤ partihally answer th¤se ass¤ciated questi¤ns which appear at top of this month's feuilleton installment.

Caveats: we are n¤t against society, we are against classical society and in favor of evolution toward quantum s¤ciety. We are n¤t against individualism, we are for quantum ihndihvihdualism in preference above classical individualism. Finally we favor quantum ihndihvihdualism monitoring and guiding quantum s¤ciety over our current (apparent to us) situation of classical society hegemonously above and controlling classical individualism.

Let's do another table for our bullets. Our classical descriptions of individualism and socialism using our vocabulary comparisons above will be ideal, not as practiced. In spite of that, readers will be able to see much similarity among our idealities and what Western culture practices débuter-de-siècle:

This table is necessarily wide to permit full left-right comparison of four omniffering ways of viewing 'individual' and 'society.' Use your browsers default font size to make all text in cells below compact. On MACs use <command, -> and on most Wintels use <control, [> to decrease default font size. All bullets' texts below should fit on single lines. Caveat: this table is incomplete, needs-requires extensive tuning and upgrading. However, it is still and yet an indispensable quantum and Quantonics pedagogic learning and teaching aid. Doug - 2Dec2003. ©Quantonics, Inc. 2003-2009
Individual		Society
Classical Individualism From I-SPoVs	Quantum Ihndihvihdualism To I-SP¤Vs	Classical Socialism ~Where Western Culture Is: S-SPoVs	Quantum S¤cialism ~Where Western Culture Could Be: S-SP¤Vs
absolute • I-SPoVs believe in truth • semper fi	abs¤lute • I-SP¤Vs bælieve ihn tentatihve changings • semper flux	absolute • S-SPoVs dogmatize one truth • semper fi	abs¤lute • respects many I-SP¤Vings, S-SP¤Vings truthings • semper flux
action • I-SPoVs act causally on theory	pragmafluxings • I-SP¤Vs adapt t¤ comtextings	action • S-SPoVs control 'society' using 'laws'	pragmafluxings • S-SP¤Vs balance heter¤gene¤us quantum comtextings
add • I-SPoVs accumulate property and ideas	superp¤se • I-SP¤Vs seek memetic 'Nash' equilihbria	add • S-SPoVs accumulate people and concepts	superp¤se • S-SP¤Vs emerscitect c¤herent aut¤n¤mies
analytic • I-SPoVs plan y=f(t) unitemporally	memetic • I-SP¤Vs ihncrementally ch¤¤se better	analytic • S-SPoVs manage many y=f(t) plans	memetic • S-SP¤Vs c¤here ensehmble aut¤n¤mies
and • I-SPoVs analyze and synthesize objects	amd • I-SP¤Vs superp¤se quantons	and • S-SPoVs manage by objective	amd • S-SP¤Vs emerscenture quantum-p¤litical systems
architecture • I-SPoVs design and build static structures	emerscitecture • I-SP¤Vs ev¤lve emerscent quantum SONs	architecture • S-SPoVs revere celebrity and locus as status	emerscitecture • S-SP¤Vs adapt s¤cietal SONs acc¤rding I-SP¤Vs • S-SP¤Vs emerscenture s¤cietal SONs via I-SP¤Vs
cause • I-SPoVs use past experience to predict-act	affectati¤n • I-SP¤Vs m¤ve selectings-ch¤¤sings t¤ n¤w	cause • S-SPoVs manage using historical evidence	affectati¤n • S-SP¤Vs ensehmble defer t¤ I-SP¤Vs ch¤¤sings
certain • I-SPoVs want predicted results • I-SPoVs' unpredicted results are failure	umcærtain • I-SP¤Vs antihcipate st¤chastic nextings • unexpected nextings point to success	certain • S-SPoVs plan for a determinate future	umcærtain • S-SP¤Vs c¤herently adapt t¤ quantum pr¤babilities
change • I-SPoVs view change as determinate	changæ • I-SP¤Vs view changæ as st¤chastic	change • S-SPoVs use S-SPoVs to mint analytic change	changæ • S-SP¤Vs quantum-supp¤rt I-SP¤Vs t¤ emersce bætter
closed • I-SPoVs: resources and potentia are limited	¤pen • I-SP¤Vs: nature ¤ffers ~unlihmited p¤tentia	closed • S-SPoVs: nation and state are bounded • S-SPoVs: perimeter is sacred, inviolable • S-SPoVs: disassembly disallowed • S-SPoVs: cessation, seceding disallowed • S-SPoVs: sunset, apoptosis disallowed, avoided	¤pen • S-SP¤Vs ¤n quantum realihty: b¤undless-umlihmited • S-SP¤Vs supp¤rt QTM n¤ti¤ns ¤f I-SP¤Vs' vast p¤tentia
context • I-SPoVs: worship and obey OGT in OGC classical ESQ 'laws' and 'disciplines' • I-SPoVs: hate those who do not agree • I-SPoVs: "...either for us or against us"	comtext • I-SP¤Vs: with respect f¤r multicomtextual Values aræ takings, pragmatizings amd practicings their multic¤mtextual free wihllings • I-SP¤Vs: quantons(respect,(havlagah,Haganah))	context • S-SPoVs over I-SPoVs • S-SPoVs: e.g., classical, objective 'principles' and 'laws' drive out individual free will • S-SPoVs: democratic will, demos will, village will all deny individual free will • S-SPoVs: OGC disciplinary systems enforce classically ESQ causal judgment • S-SPoVs: classical society worshiping state-ic S-SPoVs • S-SPoVs: despise, attempt to destroy pioneers Geertz paraphrased: "...social absolute objectivism removes judgment from history, and social relativism disables judgment."	comtext • I-SP¤Vs ¤ver S-SP¤Vs • S-SP¤Vs n¤urish quantonic heter¤comtextual s¤cial balancings via free wihll ch¤¤sings am¤ng many quantum comtexts • S-SP¤Vs: quantum s¤ciety with¤ut ESQ classical OGC-OGT S-SPoVs • S-SP¤Vs: Mae-wan Ho-esque quantum ihndihvihdual aut¤n¤mies c¤within quantum c¤hesive (per intera, EIMA) ihnterrelati¤nships
determine • I-SPoVs: we must control what happens next • semper stux	expect • I-SP¤Vs aræ anticipating emergent changæ • I-SP¤Vs: wæ cann¤t 'control' nextings • semper flux	determine • S-SPoVs believe status quo is the way to go • "stases are our societal bases" • semper stux	expect • S-SP¤Vs nurture QTM expectati¤ns ¤f bætter nextings • semper flux
dialectic • I-SPoVs: reality is excluded-middle opposites	rhet¤ric • I-SP¤Vs view 'opposites' as c¤mplementary	dialectic • S-SPoVs: laws can retro-decide right or wrong • S-SPoVs: laws' retrojudgments effectuate future • S-SPoVs: laws' ideally control all future behavior At Millennium III's start, Western cultures carry this enormous burden of S-SPoV hegemony. It is ESQ of highest degree and is, long term, a non ESS. Doug's opinions - 4Dec2003.	rhet¤ric • S-SP¤Vs say 'classical notions of 'law'' aræ ihnvalihd • S-SP¤Vs say QTM n¤ti¤ns ¤f 'law' as ¤pini¤n aræ valihd • S-SP¤Vs aræ v¤tings: "whatings happenings nextings" Appraise h¤w desirable quantum S-SP¤Vs' v¤tings aræ vis-à-vis classical S-SPoVs' 'legal' mandates for controlled, provincial, parochial, dogmatic future behavior. T¤¤, S-SP¤Vs' v¤tings aræ all realihties' quantum-wide dem¤cratic, up t¤ Planck-rate, ch¤¤sings amd selectings ¤f "whatings happenings nextings." That issi, g¤vernment n¤t just by pe¤ple, but g¤vernment by a respected amd respecting c¤herent quantum realihty. We might even garner: 1. Less-classical, uniquely-anthropocentric, induction on history. 2. Fewer classical negatives like: immutability, objective independence, cause-effect, 1 to 1 correspondence, mechanics, "no action at a distance," radical formalism, radical finalism, conservaton, closure, either-or, excluded-middle, absolute truth, predicability, quantitative analysis, etc. Doug's opinions - 4Dec2003.
either-or • I-SPoVs: we adhere Aristotle's syllogisms	b¤th-while-amd • I-SP¤Vs' reality: animate EIMA quantons	either-or • S-SPoVs: teach, learn, practice dialectic	b¤th-while-amd • S-SP¤Vs affect (~expect) anihmatæ quantum s¤phisms • S-SP¤Vs teach I-SP¤Vs QTM-anihmatæ EIMAs aræ real
excluded-middle • I-SPoVs: objects are independent • I-SPoVs: objects' signifiers are independent	ihncluded-mihddle • I-SP¤Vs: quantons c¤inside, c¤mpenetrate • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' semi¤tics c¤mmingle	excluded-middle • S-SPoVs are either independent, or • ideally share one global cultural system	ihncluded-mihddle • S-SP¤Vs superp¤se, amd aut¤n¤m¤usly c¤here • S-SP¤Vs aræ quantons(n¤nlisr,lisr), quantons(DQ,SQ)
fact • I-SPoVs: facts are 'true' • I-SPoVs: reality is determinate, OGT in OGC	hermeneutic • I-SP¤Vs pr¤cess heter¤gene¤us bælievings • I-SP¤Vs' beliefs: many ihnterpretati¤nings	fact • OGC fits all societies and S-SPoVs • OGC solves all S-SPoVs' problems	hermeneutic • S-SP¤Vs ally heter¤gene¤us S-SP¤Vs amd ISP¤Vs • S-SP¤Vs all¤y QTMs' n¤vel ihnterpretati¤nings • S-SP¤Vs' I-SP¤V islandicities pr¤t¤s¤lve l¤cal pr¤blems • Exemplar: human-b¤dy, -bæihng harm¤nizing ihts affairs
false • I-SPoVs assess radical falsity	negati¤n • I-SP¤Vs ihntuit negati¤n issi subjective	false • S-SPoVs control via falsity assessm'ts	negati¤n • S-SP¤Vs ihntuit negati¤n issi subjectihve • S-SP¤Vs: blame, hate, war spawn of classical negation • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation wastes societies' energies • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is SOM's wall, its either-or • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is SOM's Sheffer stroke • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is binary alternative denial "We have no black looks or angry words for our neighbor if he enjoys himself in his own way." Funeral Speech of Pericles c. 495-429 b.c.
global • I-SPoVs: "local to experiment" means global	c¤herent • I-SP¤Vs: realihty issi EIMA quantum c¤herent	global • S-SPoVs: "local to society" means global	c¤herent • S-SP¤Vs: all s¤cieties aræ quantum c¤herent
homogeneous • I-SPoVs' reality: a stable analytic continuum • I-SPoVs' reality is an n-spatial extensity • I-SPoVs' time is a space-identity & -proxy • I-SPoVs' reality is numerable-measurable • I-SPoVs' reality is objectively lisr • I-SPoVs' space-time is differentiable • I-SPoVs' space-time is integrable • I-SPoVs say culture is analytic • I-SPoVs say individuals are analytic	heter¤gene¤us • I-SP¤Vs' reality issi quantum • I-SP¤Vs' quantum reality issi plural fluxings • I-SP¤Vs' tihmings: heter¤gene¤us fluxings • I-SP¤Vs' spacings: heter¤gene¤us fluxings • I-SP¤Vs' massings: heter¤gene¤us fluxings • I-SP¤Vs' gravityings: heter¤gene¤us fluxings • I-SP¤Vs say fluxings aræ quantum pr¤cesses • I-SP¤Vs say pr¤cessings aræ n¤nanalytic • I-SP¤Vs say cultures aræ quantum • I-SP¤Vs say ihndihvihduals aræ quantum	homogeneous • S-SPoVs design-maintain analytic culture • S-SPoVs treat individuals as analytic objects	heter¤gene¤us • S-SP¤Vs emerscenture amd OEDC cultures • S-SP¤Vs aræ quantons ¤f quantum ihndihvihduals
idea • I-SPoVs' ideas are stable material concepts • I-SPoVs' ideas are analytically objective • I-SPoV ideas can signify any 'existing' thing • I-SPoVs use classical thing-king methods • I-SPoVs' ideas reside inside SOM's box	meme • I-SP¤Vs' memes aræ anihmatæ flux quantons • I-SP¤Vs' memes aræ pr¤bability distributi¤ns • I-SP¤Vs memes aræ ¤mnivalently qubihtal • I-SP¤Vs memes use quantum think-king m¤des • I-SP¤Vs' memes superp¤se DQ amd SQ	idea • S-SPoVs observe reality as classical ideas • S-SPoVs use CTMs to define 'new' S-SPoVs • S-SPoVs use CTMs to control society • S-SPoVs use CTMs to interpret cultural 'law' • S-SPoVs assmume 'idea' resides in OGC	meme • S-SP¤Vs assume realihty issi plural quantum memes • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ emersce n¤vel SP¤Vs • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ assist s¤cietal adapti¤n • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ apply s¤cietal ¤pini¤ns • S-SP¤Vs assume memes aræ c¤herent superp¤siti¤ns
immutable • "abysses of staysses are our bases" • semper stux	changing • I-SP¤Vs' pr¤gress: endless emergent gr¤wth • semper flux	immutable • social security maintains status quo • semper stux	changing • ESS society embraces-educes change • semper flux
independence • I-SPoVs: objects' middles are EEMD • I-SPoVs: objects are locus-specific	ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤ns • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' mihddles aræ EIMA • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' aræ l¤cus-arbihtrary	independence • S-SPoVs are EEMD • "we are not in It and It is not in us"	ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤ns • S-SPoVs are EIMA • "we are in It and It is in us"
interactive • I-SPoVs' mechanical objects interact • I-SPoVs' people interact	ass¤ciative • I-SP¤Vs' quantons EIMA QTM-ihnterrelate	interactive • S-SPoVs view societies and cultures interacting • S-SPoVs view sentients and objects interacting	ass¤ciative • S-SP¤Vs: quantum-s¤cieties amd -cultures ihnterrelate • S-SP¤Vs: realihty, s¤cieties, amd cultures aræ quantons
know-ledge • I-SPoVs stop reality and store it on ledges • I-SPoVs view data as immutable leverage • I-SPoVs: classical 'mind' recalls state-ic data • I-SPoVs: mind models ideas from past stux • I-SPoVs: mental analytic manufacturing	meme¤ryings • I-SP¤Vs emersce memes which lihve ihn realihty • I-SP¤Vs view memes as agents ¤f creati¤nings • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stage affectings n¤wings • I-SP¤Vs-QTMs: ensehmble affectati¤nal sweep • I-SP¤Vs: Planck rate OEDCings ¤f k-n¤w-ings	know-ledge • S-SPoVs teach state-ic "know-ledge is power"	meme¤ryings • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teach deep quantum r¤le-playing • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teach that th¤ughts aræ meme¤ryings • S-SP¤Vs: quantum stages OEDC emersce meme¤ryings • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teach "wæings aræ bæihngs k-n¤w-ings"
local • I-SPoVs believe thoughts are local to a brain • I-SPoVs believe 'here' is Cartesian locus • I-SPoVs believe 'where' is ideally localable • I-SPoVs believe 'when' is locally stoppable • I-SPoVs believe 'what' is locally measurable • I-SPoVs believe 'why' is locally decidable • I-SPoVs believe 'who' is locally observable • I-SPoVs believe 'how' is locally methodical • I-SPoVs believe objects stop at 'locations' • I-SPoVs believe locality induces globality • I-SPoVs believe province can be catholic	n¤nlisr • I-SP¤Vs bælieve quantons aræ n¤nlisr • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(b¤th_all_while,amd_many): • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nl¤cal,apt_l¤cal) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nis¤late,apt_is¤late) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nseparate,apt_separate) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nreduced,apt_reduced) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nl¤cus,l¤cus) (de Broglie) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(is¤flux,flux) • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(gl¤bality,l¤cality)	local • S-SPoVs: I-SPoV CTM locality notions are 'law' • S-SPoVs: dichon(either_one, or_the_other): • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonlocal, local) • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonisolate, isolate) • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonseparate, separate) • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonreduced, reduced) • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonlocus, locus) (Descartes) • S-SPoVs: dichon(motion, stopped) (0 momentum) • S-SPoVs: dichon(global, local)	n¤nlisr • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teach I-SP¤V n¤nlisr QTM n¤ti¤ns
mechanical • I-SPoVs say classical reality is 'mechanical' • I-SPoVs say a mechanical reality is analytic • I-SPoVs say a mechanical reality is formal • I-SPoVs say formal reality can be modeled • I-SPoVs build formal models using objects	emerqant • I-SP¤Vs: quantum realihty issi emerqant • I-SP¤Vs say quantons aræ emerqancies • I-SP¤Vs: quantonics aræ m¤delings realihty • I-SP¤Vs buihld emerqants using quantons	mechanical • S-SPoVs view societies, cultures as mechanical • S-SPoVs teach I-SPoVs' mechanical CTMs	emerqant • S-SP¤Vs view s¤cieties, cultures as emerqancies • S-SP¤Vs teach I-SP¤Vs' quantonic QTMs
object • I-SPoVs view reality as objective • I-SPoVs discard subjective reality	quanton • I-SP¤Vs view realihty as quantonic • I-SP¤Vs superp¤se S-O as SQ c¤within DQ	object • views people and org's as objects • manages subjectivity out of society	quanton • views society as quantonic • teaches quantonics
observe • I-SPoVs: reality is unilaterally observable • I-SPoVs: observables do not coobserve • I-SPoVs: observables do not coaffect • I-SPoVs: observables are EEMD • I-SPoVs: observables are stable-immutable • I-SPoVs: observation is non solipsistic • I-SPoVs: observation is a CTM paradigm • I-SPoVs: observation: repeatable, verifiable • I-SPoVs: observation 'proves' science	c¤¤bsfect • I-SP¤Vs: realihty issi quantum c¤¤bsfective • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables c¤¤bserve • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables c¤affect • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables aræ EIMA • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables aræ anihmatæ • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservation issi s¤lipsistic • I-SP¤Vs: c¤¤bsfection: a QTM pragmadihgm • I-SP¤Vs: any tw¤ ¤bservati¤ns ¤mniffer • I-SP¤Vs: classical 'science' is a deign to feign	observe • S-SPoVs: I-SPoV CTM observe ideas are 'law'	c¤¤bsfect • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teach I-SP¤Vs' c¤¤bsfection memes
property • I-SPoVs: classical objects have properties • I-SPoVs: classical properties are repeatable • I-SPoVs: classical property is paradigmatic • I-SPoVs: 'science' distinguishes properties • I-SPoVs: 'science' observes properties • I-SPoVs: 'science' measures properties • I-SPoVs: 'science' verifies properties • I-SPoVs: 'science' proves properties • I-SPoVs: 'science' validates properties • I-SPoVs: believe property is quantitative • I-SPoVs: believe property is predicable • I-SPoVs: believe property is causal • I-SPoVs: believe property is effective • I-SPoVs: believe property is exclusive	Value • I-SP¤Vs bælieve realihty issi Qualihty • I-SP¤Vs: Qualihty issi Value • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi qualihtative • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi affectati¤nal • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi ensehmble pr¤babilistic • I-SP¤Vs: Value: ¤ntic emergence-deemergence • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi quantonic	property • S-SPoVs view societies, culture as property • S-SPoVs teach I-SPoVs' propertyesque CTMs • S-SPoVs say I-SPoVs possess properties	Value • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teach I-SP¤Vs' Valuation memes
quantity • I-SPoVs say classical reality is quantitative	qualihty • I-SP¤Vs say quantum realihty issi qualihtative	quantity • S-SPoVs teach reality is quantitative	qualihty • S-SP¤Vs teach realihty issi qualihtative
rational • I-SPoVs view reality as logical, ratiocinated • I-SPoVs view reality as other-referent • I-SPoVs say recursion is mechanical EEMD	s¤phist • I-SP¤Vs view realihty as n¤nmechanical • I-SP¤Vs view realihty as self- & ¤ther-referent • I-SP¤Vs say recursi¤n issi quantum EIMA	rational • S-SPoVs view society as rational	s¤phist • S-SP¤Vs view s¤ciety as quantum s¤phist
reason • I-SPoVs say reason is analytic, analytical • I-SPoVs say reason is objective, lisr • I-SPoVs say reason depends on S-O schism • I-SPoVs say reason is mechanical, formal • I-SPoVs say reason is logically positive • I-SPoVs say reason is classically naïvely real • I-SPoVs say "throw away quantum reality"	ræhs¤n • I-SP¤Vs ræhs¤n: mæmæs, mæmætihciy, mæmæotihcs, quant¤l¤gy • I-SP¤Vs ræhs¤n: sæmpær flux • I-SP¤Vs ræhs¤n: ¤mniplex værihtas  (QELRed Latin) • I-SP¤Vs ræhs¤n: quantum stage pr¤cessings • I-SP¤Vs ræhs¤n: quantonic, n¤nlisr • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ræhs¤n sutures S-O 'schism' • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stagings tap reserve energy • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stagings superp¤se realihty	reason • S-SPoVs: classical reason demands consensus • S-SPoVs: classical reason is "common sense" • S-SPoVs: "one church of reason fits all" • S-SPoVs: normal ("great") minds reason alike • S-SPoVs: correct reason is state-ically verifiable	ræhs¤n • S-SP¤Vs: there aræ many physial ræhs¤nings • S-SP¤Vs: s¤cieties' ræhs¤nings may ¤mniffer • S-SP¤Vs: extra¤rdinary quantum stages freely ihmagine • S-SP¤Vs: quantum ræhs¤n adapts anihmatæ comtext • S-SP¤Vs: ihndihvihduals ræhs¤n; S-SP¤Vs cann¤t
stable • I-SPoVs delude classical reality is stable	anihmatæ • I-SP¤Vs: quantum realihty issi anihmatæ	stable • S-SPoVs delude classical reality is stable	anihmatæ • S-SP¤Vs teach, respect quantum realihty issi anihmatæ
stop • I-SPoVs delude reality is stoppable	g¤ • I-SP¤Vs: quantum realihty issi unst¤ppable	stop • S-SPoVs delude reality is stoppable	g¤ • S-SP¤Vs teach, respect quantum realihty as unst¤ppable
subject • I-SPoVs: subjective reality is illogical	quanton • I-SP¤Vs: quantum realihty issi quantonic • I-SP¤Vs: SQ issi quanton(S,O) • I-SP¤Vs: realihty issi quanton(DQ,SQ)	subject • S-SPoVs denigrate subjective reality	quanton • S-SP¤Vs revere realihty as quanton(DQ,quanton(S,O))
truth • I-SPoVs say truth is ideally static • I-SPoVs say truth is practically provisional • I-SPoVs: truth alters only via contradiction	umcærtainty • I-SP¤Vs bælieve truth changes • I-SP¤Vs: truth issi agency ¤f ihts ¤wn changæ	truth • S-SPoVs assess 'truth' via 'laws' • S-SPoVs say truth applies to law, ethics, morality	umcærtainty • S-SP¤Vs bælieve I-SP¤Vs adapt quantum umcærtainty

Now let's use our two tables' study efforts to answer those five questions:

1. What is an individual and what do we mean by individualism? (either-or individual? both-and society? mu?)
   
   Classical individualism is EOOO(classical_society, classical_individual). Classical individualism and its I-SPoVs appear material, objective, mechanical.
   
   Quantum individualism is BAWAM(quantum_society,quantum_individual). Quantum individualism and its I-SPoVs appear more natural, physial, quantonic, and better.
   
   
2. What is a society and what do we mean by socialism? (either-or society? both-and individual? mu?)
   
   Ditto our remarks under question 1, individual.
   
   
3. Are individuals and societies natural organizations and if so, how does quantum nature appear to create, grow, change, diminish, and discreate individuals and societies?
   
   To us, classical individuals and societies appear formal, manufactured, contrived, and artificial. They appear incapable of natural ontology, or perhaps we might better say, "They appear in opposition to and in utter disregard of natural ontology." Why? Primarily due their shallow formal mechanical role-playing. They appear to us as what we refer humorously, "SaS-ERPs."
   
   To us, quantum individuals and societies as we have heuristically depicted them appear more natural, physial, wholistic, and real. They appear to be enthusiastically involved in deep quantum playing. They appear