Subject:  [Quantonics}: Brilliance from Roger.
 Date:  Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:43:53 -0700
 From:  Doug Renselle <NOFLAME{at}{dot}NOSPAM>
 To:  quantonics email list post <>

(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions on our top page.)
(Minor edits [contiguous text additions in brackets], links added
bolded and color-highlighted text, and some italics below.)

Quantonics Email List Message

Hello Quantos and Roger,

Unsure how many of you paid attention to Roger's
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:43:22 -0700 response to Beth.

She sent me an email this morning (i.e., Sat., 16Oct1999) and


"Let's discuss his last sentence in his next to last paragraph."

As a result, we sat in front of a workstation, in one of our
home office areas and talked about it. Her initial reaction
was — she was worried Roger wasn't grasping MoQ's essence.
I said, "Oh, but you see, he does grasp MoQ's essence. Not
only that, but he grasps it as well as I have seen anyone
grasp it including, 'the great author,' himself."

Roger's sentence says [with Roger recursively speaking of himself],

"Interestingly, the more I focus on Experience, the
more Roger
drifts away as a static illusory pattern......."

I spent between 15 minutes and half an hour explaining to
Beth what I think Roger is saying. (Note: Beth is pretty
intuitive about MoQ. She usually does not perceive others'
comments as she did Roger's.)

I want to share it with all of you.

Let's examine Roger's words and phrases. Let's do that from
two contexts: First a SOM context, and then an MoQ context.

Roger's words and phrases we want to examine:

1. Experience
2. Roger
3. drifts away
4. static illusory pattern

Now let's do a SOM interpretation of each word and phrase:

1. SOM Experience: All objective ISMs of SOM (i.e., ISMs
we are interested in juxtaposing MoQ) see experience as
attributes 'possessed and contained' by SOM objects, a few
of which we list here:

SOM experience is objective (SOM discards subjective and
'mu' experience.
). All experiences must be valid and
verifiable. SOM teaches its adherents that verifiable and
valid experiences are objective experiences, and Value is
subjective and wholly absent. Objects may formally
'interact,' however, they may not subjectively

(Remember Pirsig's platypus-platypi? Objective scientists
initially claimed a platypus was parts of different species
objectively sown together. To classical scientists, on
first blush, a platypus was a contrived, "absurd," chimera
akin a Grecian Minotaur.)

Repetition of 'objective experience' absent any subjective
Value [i.e., repeatability] is crucial to SOM science, so that it
can verify and validate SOM experimental experiences. From
this dependency on repetition, some SOM science adds (an
evolving tendency toward) 'induction' or 'a priori thought'
to its list of criteria for objective experience we describe
above. Analyticity, and ideal (viewed from within SOM's
tiny box) Newtonian point objects arise as what MoQites call
"SOM illusions (i.e., y = f(t))." Also see Doug's QELR of 'line.'

Essentially, SOM philosophy adheres most of what we say
above about SOM objective experience (I.e., What we say
as MoQites observing SOM's inchoate assumptions about
SOM's own philosophy and science.)

2. SOM Roger: To SOM, Roger is: first an object, and
second a subject. To SOM, object Roger is (possesses
and contains) all attributes I listed above under experience.

But SOM does admit he is more than that. He is also
subjective; however, his subjective part is suspect. It can
be and usually is 'unreasonable, irrational, and absurd,' so
SOM says his subjective nature must be corralled in a box,
a "Church of Reason," by formal, bivalent, propositional
logic, thus forcing SOM subjective mind into an either-or
objective straight-jacket.

Abiding SOM axioms, Roger's mind may-must not think
about anything and produce verifiable and valid results
without its subjective thoughts all 'tied to' or 'signifying'
objects. Roger's mind's thoughts must 'signify' objects.

Thoughts must be objective because subjective thoughts are,
"...useless, irrational, unreasonable, and absurd." SOM
teaches us to 'dis' subjective thoughts. Only when SOM
encounters paradice does it quibble subjectivity. Besides,
any smart SOMite will tell you, "Buridan proved that all
paradoxes are FALSE. Paradoxes are, 'self-contradictory.'"

(Consider SOM's arrogance in its assumption first that
reality divides into subjects and objects, and second
that SOM is uniquely qualified to absolutely assess
which is objective and which is subjective, and third
to assess absolute truth based upon objective 'logic'
while discarding all subjective stuff.)

3. SOM drifts away: Only SOM objects drift away, e.g.,
boats, planes, balloons, etc. [SOM subjects may not
drift away because they do not 'exist.']

4. SOM illusory static pattern: Illusory static patterns
do not exist in SOM. When you encounter them, ignore them,
or sweep them under a rug where no one may find them.

Now let's do an MoQ-quantum-Quantonic interpretation of each
of Roger's words and phrases:

1. MoQ Experience: MoQ tells us experience is Value.
Experience is Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs) in
interrelationships with Dynamic Quality. Experience is
SPoVs or more generically SQ in interrelationships with both
other SQ and DQ. DQ mediates SQ-SQ experience. SQ in
interrelationships with DQ we call Direct Experience.

MoQ says experience is unending, apparently continuous but
actually quantized moral assessment-judgment of Value.
Experience happens at all levels of MoQ in a massively
parallel fashion.

Simply experience is interrelationships, again, i.e.,
'Value.' We use quantons to model interrelationships, so
quantons are modeling experience.

Direct experience


Here, for our first time, we may be a little bit more
specific and use our Quantonic notation to do as Roger says,
"...focus on Experience..."

SOM lingo which we use with great reservation (because
we do not have a general MoQ language yet, or we have not
altered-evolved SOM language enough yet) uses many words
which help us "focus." Journalists use what I call H5W. That
is, How, why, what, who, where and when. We can use
those words to exemplify what Roger means when he says,
"...focus on Experience..." Let's do just one example.
Using Quantonic notation, 'where' is Roger focusing?

Let's review our notation.


quanton(DQ,SQ), or


quanton(DQ,SQ) mediated by ubiquitous DQ.

(I.e., SQ is in DQ and DQ is in SQ.)

If you read any historical posts from Lila Squad, you will
hear MoQite wannabes talking about DQ's "face," or its
"surface," or Platt Holden's "...the edge of now..." In our
quanton model, where is, face, surface, and edge of now?

A good guess is at comma, correct? But we say in MoQese,
DQ commingles all SQ. Again, DQ is in SQ and SQ is in DQ.
Doesn't our comma separate DQ and SQ? Yes. We are in a
way trapped by our legacy SOM notation. We mitigate our
trap by leaving a usual space after a comma out. Thus DQ,SQ
represents commingling interrelationshipings, commingling
experience. Compare that to SOM notation like this:
subject, object. A space-wall 'separates' subject and
object disallowing any commingling either actual or mentally
imagined. Where SOM locates, isolates, separates and
reduces — MoQ commingles. (Holographically "...mixes
all things in all." A quantum~
gnostic quotation. Doug -

But Roger appears to mean more when he says "focus." He
appears to be applying Platt's "...edge of now..." to his
intended semantic. Now where is that in our quanton? I
think about it as just left of comma! Direct Experience
puts a SPoV on THE edge. It puts SQ right on DQ's edge.

Pirsig, in ZMM, gives us his analogy in these five
paragraphs, (Our bold, italics, brackets, links, color.)

"Romantic Quality [DQ], in terms of this analogy, isn't any
"part" of the train. It's the leading edge of the engine, a
two-dimensional surface of no real significance unless you
understand that the train isn't a static entity at all. A
train really isn't a train if it can't go anywhere. In the
process of examining the train and subdividing it into parts
we've inadvertently stopped it, so that it really isn't a
train we are examining. That's why we get stuck.

"The real train of knowledge isn't a static entity that can
be stopped and subdivided. It's always going somewhere. On a
track called Quality. And that engine and all those 120
boxcars are never going anywhere except where the track of
Quality takes them; and romantic Quality, the leading edge
of the engine, takes them along that track.

"Romantic reality is the cutting edge of experience. It's
the leading edge of the train of knowledge that keeps the
whole train on the track. (Here, we see Pirsig describing Peirce's
and James' forward~looking
affective quantum~uncertain
Traditional knowledge is only the collective
memory of where that leading edge has been (...and compares
it to classical backward-looking, inductive- deductive,
determinate-causal predictable 'practicalism.' Doug - 2Apr2009.)
At the leading edge there are no subjects, no objects, only the
track of Quality ahead, and if you have no formal way of
evaluating, no way of acknowledging this Quality, then the
entire train has no way of knowing where to go. You don't
have pure have pure confusion. The leading edge
is where absolutely all the action is. The leading edge
contains all the infinite possibilities of the future. It
contains all the history of the past. Where else could they
be contained? (Doug's bold color italics added to go with
added link.)

"The past cannot remember the past. The future can't
generate the future. The cutting edge of this instant right
here and now is always nothing less than the totality of
everything there is.

"Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an
irrelevant offshoot of structure. Value is the predecessor
of structure. It's the preintellectual awareness that gives
rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the
basis of value, and really to understand structured reality
requires an understanding of the value source from which
it's derived." Near end of ch. 24, pp. 254-5/373 of ZMM
Bantam paperback.

SOM causes us to get, 'stuck.' SOM stops Quality's train.

Pirsig's words above are Roger's source, I think, of his
view of Experience. Roger quoted these recently and I
offered 'Lilaian' interpretation-extension. One may interpret
Pirsig as saying here, "...there is no 'actual' SQ." Our quanton
notation allows Roger to sit-act just left of comma. And in
Lila, Pirsig extends his reality above to admit commingling
of DQ and SQ via his leading edge of now.

2. MoQ Roger: Roger is a SPoV which commingles DQ.


quanton(DQ,Roger). [Note implicit recursion.]
[Note intrinsic dynamis.]

Rev. 2Apr2009 Doug.

When Roger focuses on experience, he moves left. He moves
closer to DQ and, as he does so, superposition of both DQ
and Roger, represented by comma, grows.

[Over a year later, we now have Henri Louis Bergson's model of
duration to compare to Rogerquanton(DQ,SQ). See our
quantons used to model Bergsonian Duration.
Rev. 22Jan2001 Doug.]

3. MoQ drifts away: As superposition grows, Roger and DQ
become 'coherent.' Roger 'senses' this as loss of all
semantic content, with simultaneous gain of 'pure'
knowledge. Meaning as SQ represents it, drifts away. SQ
and DQ unify.

But you say, Doug, "You sound like some kind of nut. You
sound like some occult, spiritualist weirdo." Ten years
ago, I probably would have agreed.

But quantum science agrees with what Roger describes. I put
a link to Christoph Schiller's excellent Motion Mountain web
site in our Quanto list's Quality Events (See Doug's QELR of
occur.) page just for this reason — for all Quantos to read at
leisure. Schiller tells us that at Planck length scales of reality,
physical equivalents of DQ and SQ become
INDISTINGUISHABLE! They unify! (See Doug's recent,
CeodE 2007-8, treatise on unification. Doug - 2Apr2009.)

Roger's drifting takes him closer to DQ-SQ unification.
That isn't doofus dweeb-speak. It is real! That he can
make it happen, in my opinion, verifies both MoQ and our
quanton notation extension to it.

4. MoQ static illusory pattern: Roger as distinct becomes
illusory as he moves further left of comma. Roger grows his
superposition with DQ.

Philosophical consequences of this are just enormous! To be
able to do this at will offers ramifications beyond our
imagination. I intend to write about a few of these in a
new Millennium III white paper which will appear on our site
during 1st half of 2000.

Pirsig knows how to do this. And Eugen Herrigel writes
about his learning process with a Zen Master in his Zen in
the Art of Archer
y, title namesake of Pirsig's ZMM.

I use it daily to tap what Boris Sidis and William James
call "reserve energy."

What Roger talks about transforms MoQites. Our minds are no
longer SOMitic brain-objects trapped in their skull-boxes.
Our minds are not stopped trains. Our minds can unify with
DQ, imposing no limits on intellectual pattern growth
potential. Our minds are quantum stages whose
stages-omnirectional are nexuses to all reality.

That is how we perceive SOM vis-à-vis MoQ perspectives of
Roger's sentence,

"Interestingly, the more I focus on Experience, the more
Roger drifts away as a static illusory pattern......."

Those of you who Value this material covering Roger's Brilliance may
be interested in a new Quantonics web page on Stairway Illusions as
Evidence of Our Quantum Stages
. This is nontrivial, but fun reading.

Many truths to you,


Doug Renselle
In Quantonics


"That utopian paradice where truepers rule over the bad goods."

by Doug Renselle, 10May1998.


©Quantonics, Inc., 1999-2024 Rev. 25Jun2012  PDR — Created 23Oct1999  PDR (1 of 2)


Note Know where to go - 26Jul2000 - PDR: Months after we wrote this post to Quanto back in October, 1999, we recalled a fascinating story about Richard P. Feynman by James Gleick in his biography of Feynman entitled, Genius.

Keep in mind as you read our little story that quantum 'action' is "...where absolutely all the action is."

Our story begins on page 60 (521 total pages including index) of Vintage's Genius paperback. Gleick says Feynman meets with Abram Bader and Bader explains how classical physicists usually add potential and kinetic energy to get a system's total energy. Bader asks Feynman to consider what happens when, instead of adding those terms, we subtract them. Classically their sum always conserves, however their difference for a moving object is always changing. Bader showed Feynman how this difference is what physicists call action, and a projectile's path will always follow a path of 'least action.' This path is always a parabolic curve, or what mathematicians referring 3-space call a "conic section."

Gleick goes on to remark how a projectile appears to "...choose its path. It seems to know all possibilities in advance. [assuming no path altering variables like wind, collisions, etc.]"

Or mimicking and inverting Pirsig's quote above, " seems to have a way of knowing where to go."

Gleick tells how these minimum principles (there are others) piqued many philosophers' ponderings.

How does a projectile 'know' where to go? Gleick tells us Feynman found his answer in quantum mechanics.

Note that quantum mechanics' foundation rests on a little-tiny natural constant called Planck's constant. Planck called it "nature's least unit of action."

To make a long story shorter, least action leads physicists away from a more classical, particulate (objective) Hamiltonian view of reality and toward a LaGrangian-Schrödinger wave perspective of quantum reality.

Least action, Feynman found, is related to waves. See p. 129 of Genius.

(Also consider Gleick's description of Dirac's use of "analogous" vis-à-vis Phaedrus' quote of Socrates in ZMM chapter 30 that, "Socrates's only an analogy." This is important because most 'approved' interpretations of quantum mechanics are 'correct' and are 'analogous.' This aligns Pirsig's MoQ's "many truths." I.e., quantum reality is quantal and 'plural' not continuous and objectively 'monistic.')

Another brief aside:

This is not part of our story reader, but it will help you to see where we are going. Actual quantum reality composes two classes of constituents: bosons and fermions. Bosons are integer spin quantons. Fermions are 1/2 integer spin quantons.

Back to our story...

Enter 'wobble.' Feynman is in Cornell's cafeteria when a plate (projectile) flys over his head. He experiences an epiphany. He sees that plate's 'wobble.' It rotates and wobbles and both of those frequencies are different but apparently related.

Later, after much effort, he shows that fw is double fr. I.e. plate's rotation to wobble is 1/2! Feynman recognizes that correlation with fermionic spin 1/2. See pages 227-229 of Genius.

Now let's leave Gleick, Feynman, et al., and enter Quantonics.

We are nearing a local end to our little story.

We offer our own heuristics now to finish our story: How does a fermion know where to go? Why does a fermionic projectile follow a parabolic trajectory when otherwise unperturbed?

We need to ask you to read our descriptions of four short experiments and then return here. See Some Fermion Rotational Nonsymmetry Experiments. Remainder of our little story will have little or much less meaning if you did not read our experiments.

Earlier we said that projectiles appear to 'know' to follow a parabolic path. We call parabolic paths "conic sections." What heuristic inference can we now make about quantum VES? Does VES' interrelationship with our fermionic quanton projectile describe a parabolic path? Our answer is "Yes!"

If you agree with us, then what other heuristic inference can we make? Can we say "VES is a conic section?" or "VES interrelates with our quanton projectile as though VES were a conic section?" Our answer is, apparent to us, "Yes!"

If you agree with us, you probably are asking a very cogent question just now, "But Doug, actual physical reality discloses no evidence of VES. How can we claim VES is a conic section, if we do not know that it exists?" And further you ask, "Doug, why cannot we see VES, i.e., observe it directly?"

Our answer is that VES exists as self-canceling (from an actual or 'physical' perspective) isotropic omniflux. We do not have good words to describe VES, let alone define it (As a philosophical dual of Pirsig's DQ, and adhering Pirsigean MoQ axioms, we must admit that it is 'indefinable.' Also note how well our 'description' of VES aligns Dr. Irving Stein's nonspace. See Stein.).

But we heuristically infer that VES' isoflux is 'isoconic,' and thus fermionic quanton projectiles know where to go!

Pirsig's leading edge is where our projectile makes its next Planck rate quantal decision where to go. Is where it's going certain? No! Why? Because our projectile's local context is also changing at massively parallel Planck rates (quantum uncertainty's source). We infer that other Planck rate changes elsewhere affect our projectile's local decision making processes by reshaping VES' isocone.

One more point! Bosons do not 'wobble!' Consider how bosons interrelate with VES. What do we observe? Do bosons know where to go? Do they care? Let us know what you think.

That's it!

Our little story records most of how we arrived at our conclusion of VES as isotropic isoconic isoflux.

Thanks for taking time to read our little story.

Doug. (28Jul2000)


Note sown - I mistyped this, intending 'sewn,' but after I considered its semantic, I left it. SOM tends to 'sow' objects, not 'sew' them as Pirsig intended in his Platypus platypus. SOM views objects as sown or strewn. SOM does not view objects as MoQ does: commingling.


Note a priori thought - Since I am using SOM lingo in our SOM context above, I should have technically used 'a posteriori' as my intended dual of 'induction.' If one spends some time considering before or after and prior or post from a SOM perspective one finds a plethora of dichotomy-manufactured paradice. Inductive thought uses history (prior) to predict future (post) 'events.' I see this as 'a priori' thought. However, one may (probably should) view it as both-and. Similarly, one may ponder deductive thought from a more enlightened both-and perspective. Inductive vis-à-vis deductive thought in SOM, as expected, confuses via implicit emersion of paradice.


Note stages-omnirectional - A word play on stage-left, stage-right.


Note on SOM hiding - Abundant evidence exists showing
SOMites in classical science and mathematics have done this in
spades! This is Pirsig's "Church of Reason" showing its true
colors. James Gleick talks about it in his book, Chaos. Davis
and Hersh talk about cover-ups and subterfuge, especially on
mathematics' process of proof, in their, The Mathematical
, an excellent book. Simon Singh gingerly
touches foundational issues in mathematics in his, Fermat's
. He tells us how Pythagoras assassinated Hippasus
for discovering irrational numbers and thus spoiling
Pythagoras' 'holy' whole numbers. (See page 50/315, 1st
ed.) Russell and Whitehead's Principia, is essentially
one huge SOM cover-up which people like Gödel, Turing, et
al., have exposed. Mathematical induction is a sizable
falsehood perpetuated, still today. Mathematicians depend
disproportionately on induction for many of their [context free?]
'proofs.' Our own state of Indiana wrote a law decades ago and
since rescinded forcing pi's value to three! MoQ shows us,
unambiguously, SOMthink is a core source of this major
ethical problem. This text has been altered and extended
at, SOM Assessment of Value. See page bottom.

Use your back button to return. This note is accessed from multiple locations.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

©Quantonics, Inc., 1999-2024 Rev. 18Sep2013  PDR — Created 23Oct1999  PDR (2 of 2)
(26Jul2000 rev - Repair [Repeatability] with [i.e., repeatability].)
(26Jul2000 rev - Correct 'Eugene Herrigel' to 'Eugen Herrigel.')
(28Jul2000 rev - Add 'knowing where to go' note to our third paragraph of Pirsig's quote.)
(22Jan2001 rev - Add 'intrinsic dynamis' note. Add ref. to Bergson duration quanton.)
(2Apr2009 rev - Make page current. Change 'omni[di]rectional' with 'omnirectional.' Reset legacy markups. Add links to some QELRs, e.g., 'line,' which have been developed since 2006.)
(25Jun2012 rev - Add a couple of links to QVH Table and What Is Immanence.)
(18Sep2013 rev - Make page current. Repair some text colors.)