This is our July, 2007 editorial
Our editorials are often provocative; if we offend you, do not read them - Doug.
These editorials are Doug's opinions, n¤t the opinions.
Go directly to 2007 July News
Either-OR creates walls. B¤th~amdings tear them down.
Either-OR excludes and excommunicates. B¤th~amdings' included~middlings quantum~cohere islandic~autonomies.
Doug - 18Jun2007.
Darkness in one's soul is merely self~interference. Two or more of your Lightings making apparent darkness.
Thinkq about iht without thing-king about it.
Doug - 14Jun2007.
Get this: 'political correctness,' very similar 'universal' religion, is totalitarian dogma, IS the way orthodoxy, is linguistic hegemony!
Doug - 13Jun2007.
Doug was having a delightful co(m)nversation with a great female friend of Beth.
She said, "Doug you should publish your ideas." Doug responded, "I have published many of my memeos in Quantonics. Why would I want to publish in a 'standard' classical paper format?"
She came back with this, "Well conventional publishing involves professional editorial staff who lend a kind of accreditation to one's work."
Doug really likes this lady, but he nearly gagged at that response. Why?
Doug retorted, "What human or social entity other than Doug is qualified to accredit Doug?"
Do you believe that people who award authors, for example, Pulitzer Prizes, really have both read and understood what an author is writing about? How could they do that? Have you ever seen a team like that publish their own opus review of an author's work? That effort would exceed author's own effort! There is n¤ way that Doug can fathom how any other person can pretend to be you. But isn't that needed to accredit you? This is similar Pirsig's remarks that those who treat insanity must be accredited to 'not' be or have been insane. Are you laughing hysterically yet?
You and any other person are wholly omniffering entities, and individually evolving omnifferently in real time on top of that!
Besides, society arrogantly and ineptly proffers celebrity for others without even an inkling of deeper issues of that work. In many cases that celebrity has proven unjustified and unjustifiable: Einstein (physics), Heisenberg (physics), Bohr (physics), Boas (Franz, anthropology; Franz didn't get it—at all...a died in wool SOMite...), Freud (psychology-psychiatry), this list is nearly endless and is powerful evidence of societal ineptness at assessing credibility of celebrities.
One more comment...Doug will never accredit himself, only say "I am (my personal quantum~gn¤stic quanton is) trying to d¤, pragma, better." Some entity abundantly greater than Doug will have to do that, assuming it is 'necessary.'
Doug - 14Jun2007.
Stephan A. Hoeller, in his Gnosticism gives immense breadth to gnosis' roots in this statement,
"The Hindu and the Gnostic would agree that to know one's deepest self is tantamount to knowing God."
You'll find this quote in Chapter 12, Section title 'Gnosticism and Eastern Religions,' page 179 of 257 total pages including index. Our copy is a paperback, Quest Books, 2002 edition.
Clearly, gnosis is individualist, just as Elaine Pagels has taught us, Essene Jesus emphasized finding God through one's own individual efforts.
Essene Jesuit Gnosis is n¤t about socially consensual infallible dogma telling individuals what and who God is.
Juxtapose Irenæus' antiheretical orthodox social dogma and Tribe of Judah, Beth David, Essene Jesus' heterodox individual choice.
Doug - 8Jun2007.
Recently (c. mid-2007) we have had a student of Quantonics show great omnifficulty in an individual's ability omnistinguishing real and reality.
You may recall Doug's efforts describing for AH issues of completeness in response to AH's query, "Is MoQ complete?"
Before we proceed please read content at that link; only a couple of paragraphs to give you decent comtext.
Our student appeared to Doug to want to bootstrap quanton(sleepings,wakings) to full equomnivalence with quanton(n¤nactualityings,actualityings).
O'gadons among you will see student's problem immediately.
Quanton(sleepings,wakings) issi 'real.' Its partiality issi implicit.
Quanton(n¤nactualityings,actualityings) issi intended (a la Pirsig's MoQ) as a memeotic of 'reality.' Said quanton carries a meme of completeness cowithin it.
Pirsig's MoQ gains at least a memetic of completeness via its inclusion of all known, unknown, and unknowable reality.
See classical and quantum reality QELRs.
Doug - 8Jun2007.
Have you noticed how Micro$lopt is committing corporate self-euthanasia?
They're up to their old antitrust dirty tricks in their latest OS abomination: Vista!
Their latest FUD 'feature' in Vista is to cripple competitors' desktop search capabilities.
See this link.
They just do not get it, do they?
Solution? Buy an Apple MAC Pro!
OS X Leopard makes Vista look, comparatively, like chaotic babel.
And, as far as we know, Vista still has a wholly insecure OSFA 'registry.'
Doug refuses to buy anymore M$ software for his MACs. Word and Excel both have been crippled (Doug is almost sure) intentionally by M$ to underperform their analogues on PCs. Doug has long lists of complaints about this which he has never published.
Instead, Doug now uses Sun's OOo GNU OpenOffice.org kit. Good and evolving day by day toward even better. Too, it's open. You can change it, share it. whatever as long as you adhere GNU licensing agreements. Those agreements actually protect you from mercenary hegemons who want to deprive you of your rights to free and open software, so they advantage (verb) good also.
OOo is a little slower than M$ analogues, but it works adequately for Doug. Also, Doug is boosting a G5 quad-2.5GHz system to 10Gbytes of RAM. That should kick speed issues out of any immediate concern. Some folk are conjecturing 64 core cpus within next 5 years... Can you imagine 100GHz and above equivalence. Doug could actually use it now. But what used to take weeks now takes minutes, so for now we're happy. Those of you software engineers had best be polishing your multi-parallel-cpu-core-processing-thread-pipeline skills! Ponder how Intel's compiler folk are pushing technologies' edgings in that regard nowings...check out www.macresearch.org! Read as many white papers as you can find re: these topics.
Doug - 12Jun2007.
Doug - 26Jul2007.
It is almost impossible to ignore Ann Coulter, agree?
Makes Doug think of a scene in that movie Working
Girl, near end, where Melanie Griffith tells Sigourney Weaver
(Doug's Coulter analogue) to " And get your—What was
it you called it? boney ass—out of here." Coulter,
to Doug, physically is like a pile of tinker toys. Ugh! Coulter,
with Ms. Griffith, change that 'b' to an 'h' and we move closer
to a better reality! She is fabulous, too, in 1992's movie
Stranger Among Us, where Doug first learned about Kabbalah,
bashert, and basherta. Subsequently Doug bought a copy of Gershom
Scholem's Kabbalah, and has immensely enjoyed sampling
it. 
Doug - 12Jun2007.
Do you know about Avvo?
It's a lawyer ranking system! Now there is something USA really needs.
The Register's Kevin Fayle wrote an article about Avvo.
Doug found one of Fayle's observations philosophically interesting:
"That ranking system could still prove to be the site's downfall, however. In light of a recent 9th Circuit decision, the use of an algorithm to create a ranking for attorneys could remove protections that websites usually enjoy for content arising from third-party sources."
But isn't 'law' itself canonic? Isn't 'law' when practiced ideally, dialectical?
"Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
And do not courts claim qua at assessing absoluteness of truth?
Seems Avvo has a powerful philosophical precedent for its approach, unless our legal system has decided, rather, that it is itself 'subjective.'
Classical dialectic enables 'law' as 'absolutely certain.'
Quantum~reality disables 'law' as genuine doubt via quantum~uncertainty's ubiquity. All judgment is at best and always empirically, stochastically, only plausible. In Doug's view, we can never call that "beyond a reasonable doubt." So 'law' is limited to what juries believe, not what is real.
As long as our USA legal system regards self as sovereign individuals it can coerce and manipulate invalid legal outcomes to its own liking.
Distilled, only either "yes" or "no" answers are n¤t 'legal!'
Reality issi n¤t 'legally dialectical.'
To claim 'legal due process' can be dialectical and assess 'truth,' is a lie, period!
'Truth' and 'legality' are classico-social antithetics, folks!
Ranking lawyers dialectically-formally-mechanically-canonically, per se, is a tell that 'best' lawyers 'win' regardless of 'truth.'
All types of scalarbation are always DIQheaded.
Doug - 12Jun2007.
Here's something which we shall never avoid:
Ephemeral objecta (heterogeneity of measurements on plural objects) are st¤chastihc. Ahlways have bææn, ahlways wihll bæ!
Doug - 12Jun2007.
Doug likes Apple. You regulars know that already.
Since Doug comments frequently about Apple, he needs to disclose a recent, early-mid June, 2007, purchase of Apple stock.
For approximately two years we have been out of Apple stock, now we are back in.
This is not a recommendation. Doug is not a 'certified' counsellor or broker of stocks. Just an individual investor who loves a company and its visionary and potent management and technical talent. Other than stock and proud ownership of multiple of Apple's fine products, Doug has no affiliations with Apple.
Doug - 14Jun2007.
| H5Wings | Beforings Yourings Emergencings | ...Nowings - Dt... | ...Nowings... | ...Nowings + Dt... | H5Wing's Peaqloings | Afterings Yourings Immergencings | Doug's Commentary | ||
| Howings | Howings did you 'exist' before you were born? Why? Why n¤t? |  |
Your Howings do evolve, do they n¤t? You can see that ad oculos here. | ||||||
| Whyings | Whyings were you born? | |
Your Whyings are stochastic, won't you agree? | ||||||
| Whenings | If you were n¤t born on your current birthday, would you have been born some other birthday? Why? Why not? | |
Does each cell in your body experience omniffering Whenings? Or do they adhere Greenwich mean time? Is that friendly time, or mean time? Which time zone? Are all time zones mean or nice? | ||||||
| Whereings | Whereing wereings youings before you were born? Did you emerge from 'no' thing? From 'no' whereings? Where is nowhere? | |
Is your left eye same whereings as your right eye? Whenings? | ||||||
| Whoings |
Who were you before you were born? Was your whonessing created when you were born? From what was your whoness created? Why? Is your whonessing a process? A state? Are you immutable? Does your whonessing change? Evolve? Why? Why not? |
|
Are you, you one second from now? Before now? Ten years from now. Ten years before now? Anyone who tells you evolution is "wrong" is an idiot: you can see that eidetically now, can you n¤t? Does age evolve you? Is learning evolution? Is growing from a zygote to a mature human evolution? If your mom and dad didn't have you, would (could) someone else give birth to you? Why? Why n¤t? Is your genome you? Your spirit? Your soul? Your body? Why does your body emit enormous numbers of biophotons when you immerse and emit very few while you are alive? Why do cancers emit more biophotons than healthy tissue? | ||||||
| Whatings | Whatings were youings prior your birthings? Was your whatnessing born from, emerged from some otherings? What otherings? Did your pre-emergent whatnessing want to become youings? Why? Why not? | |
Whatings are you? Would you believe you are, by cell count, 10 parts microbial and only one part human? Your human essence is unsustainable without lots and lots of microbial help. How long do your cells live? Most cells are born, live about 170 days, and die. Their replacements are resurrected and replaced from intra-body organic chemicals. Are you like your body's cells? Why would you think that? Why n¤t? | ||||||
Doug - 24Jun2007.
