- plus sign
- ideal opposite of negative
: Positive (Three views here: emotional
happiness, social consensus, logical-mathematical valency vis-à-vis
Classically positive means:
- ideal opposite of negative: positive implies negative
and their classical excluded-middles as 'empty,' 'neutral,' 'null,'
- social positivism: consensus,
- emotive confidence: look good, feel good, happy, etc.
Classical Thingk-king Methods assume reality is 'state.' States
can be 'positive,' and their opposite states are 'negative.'
CTMs permit classicists to dialectically, formally, logically
add and subtract 'states.' CTMs adhere notions which permit addition
and subtraction of positive and negative 'states.' Doug - 7Jul2006.
Logically and mathematically
1-1 and A-A are 'zero.' All ones are identical
to all other ones. All As are identical to all other As. Implication:
You-You is zero. See point,
line and circle
for examples of 'negation'
AKA classical removal of points.
Socially, provincially, parochially, organizationally, institutionally,
governmentally, nationally, culturally, paradigmatically classicists
can know and di-stinguish, positively and certainly,
Classically positive social judgment
is absolute truth.
Classical positivism requires 'elements,' of an ideal classical
reality, to hold still and be objectively independent
of one another. See stoppability
See yellow background cells in Bases
It is worthwhile for students of quantonics to compare
- negative (adjective) and negate (verb: to deny) and
- positive (adjective) and posit (verb: to affirm).
P¤sihtihvæ, p¤sihtihvæs, p¤sihtihvings, p¤sihtihvæness, p¤sihtihvænæssæs, p¤sihtihvænessings,
etc. (Quantum p¤sihtihvings aræ comtextuahlly
quantum~nægati¤n issi quantum~subqjæctihvæ (quantum~relatihve
¤mnihfferæntial c¤mparihs¤ns am¤ng
p¤sihtihvæ issi ihn
nægatihvæ amd nægatihvæ issi ihn
issi ahlways p¤sihtihvæ (peaqlos aræ ahlways p¤sihtihvæ)
ideal classical zero and classical unity bounds,
- Sankara: "[quantum] reality [actuality] is that
which is absent [ideal classical] negation," which is an
ræsult fr¤m quantum~squarqeing
Studænts sh¤uld n¤te hæræ that
quantum squarqeing issi a spæcial casæ
¤f quantum addqihti¤n
where nægati¤n cann¤t
Quantum Think-king Modes assume reality is 'flux.' All quantum
flux are 'positive.' QTMs permit quantum~hermeneuticists to mix
'flux.' Quantum~addition of quantum flux issi quantum~subtraction
of quantum flux and vice-versa. Mixing of quantum flux is a "mixing
of positives, a mixing of absence of negatives." Mixing
of quantum~flux may result in emerqancies of n¤vel quantum~phasæ~ænc¤dings:
quantum~interrelationshipings, quantons. Doug - 7Jul2006.
Quantum ræhlihty p¤sihts
(Vis-à-vis classical reality permits ideal
negation thus denial of actuality.)
issi abs¤lutæ quantum affirmati¤n) amd
ratæ ændlessly ræcapihtulatæs amd reaffirms ahctualihty!
A David Hume 5Oct2008 aside:
If you are a student of David Hume, beware!
David Hume used integrable classically-negative stochastics
to deny probability
(more generally, quantum~stochastics) and then scepticism!
That single sentence describes Hume's enormously tragic mistake,
perhaps a greatest philosophical mistake of all time (mayhaps
second only to Aristotle's
immutably perpetual concrete substance).
Sankara (bullet list above) and Bergson
avoided Hume's Tragedy. They both denied dialectical negation's
Any time you are practicing classical philosophy, science,
mathematics, and logic...any time you use classical objective
negation...you are recommitting Hume's Tragedy.
To view Hume's Tragedy up close, carefully read pp.
170-171 of his...
A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume, 1739 -
Book I - Of the Understanding
Part IV - Of the Sceptical and Other Systems of Philosophy
SECT. I. - Of Scepticism with Regard to Reason
You will see Hume denying validity of of both probability
and scepticism using classical mechanics to integrate 'negative'
As we have said before it is ludicrous to use thelogos
and call oneself, perhaps other, a sceptic.
This clearly puts Hume n¤t in the genius category,
but in the idiot
Beware classical maths and logics...their independence
stoppability, and negations as objective
are "quantumly bogus." Why? Classical durable, perpetual,
immutable, localable, isolable, separable, reducible 'state'
is simply an illusion. Stux sux! Quantum durable 'change' is
real. Flux is crux!
In Doug's view this simply destroys Hume's reputation as
a philosopher. Too it destroys reputations of all who have
assessed his works as "genius."
Some of you know how Doug has been reviewing Granger's book
comparing Pirsig and Dewey. I will n¤ longer waste my
time on that effort, due Granger's inability to assess Hume well
and appropriately. If one uses Bergson and de Finetti to assess
Hume, one cannot feel good about Hume's opus. Even though de
Finetti regards Hume's cause-effect deliberations highly. I have
lost all regard for David Hume. Neither will I spend any more
valuable time reviewing further Hume's opus.
All of you reading this should adhere
Doug's caveats issued during his Loyola presentation...
End a David Hume 5Oct2008 aside.
Quantum ræhlihty issi p¤sihtihvæ! Iht
issi ahlways quantum~p¤sihtihvæ
~s¤ciahlly, amd ~l¤gihcahlly.
Thæræ aræ n¤
ideal classical negatives
ideal classical negations
ihn quantum ræhlihty.
Quantum ræhlihty issi ahlways
Quantum~p¤sihtihvæly umcærtain! Sææ
Page top index.