If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

— The Quantonics Society News for 2007 - July —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

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 real, and 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 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! 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?

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.

2007 TQS News
December, 2006 through November, 2007                                  TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News



You are here:

Topics: A Novel
in Town...
Parallels on MACInTao,
Latest Review Efforts,
Quantum Computing Breakthrough,
State of Union Lies...
Apple-TV Network Hologram,
Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit,
Should String Theory Predict?
Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings,
William James' on "Pessimism vav Optimism"
G5 Quad Increased Performance,
Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid
Doug shouldn't beat up on Hillary Clinton, says Mitch in Australia and other criticisms, and
A response to Mitch from DMD.
A Quantum Love Affair, Elgato EyeTV Hybrid,
Females in Medicine

FireFox Issue, A letter from Rick,

Doug saved best for last...

Doug's Review Progress Jolly's Fast VNC,
Dionne's Liberal Moment, and Defining Wisdom.
On A Super Weapon against Earth, On Apple's OS X Leopard, Pirsig vis-à-vis Dewey and Hume "...embraces radical scepticism..." ?

July, 2007 News:

A Quantum Love Affair...

Classically love is objective. Classicists shove love's emotions into SOM's box. Classicists turn love's qualities into scalarbative quantities.

But is a woman's beauty reifiable? Is a woman's beauty dichon(internal, external)?

Is a man's body reifiable? Is a man's handsomeness dichon(internal, external)?

Is a ferm's, herm's, merm's sexual miscibility reifiable? (If you need a reference here, search on Anne Fausto Sterling. Doug - 2Jun2007.) Is their coattractiveness dichon(internal, external)?

As a woman, does your man (possibly your significant other) treat you as though you are an object? Do you like that? Do you want that? Do you need that?

As a man, does your woman (possibly your significant other) treat you as though you are an object? Do you like that? Do you want that? Do you need that?

Are you measured? Do you have an IQ? Are you expected to be consistent? Are you expected to fit a specific, dogmatic culture? Do you like that? Do you want that? Do you need that?

Are you taught that vows, like laws, are classically tautologous...forever? Do you like that? Do you want that? Do you need that?

If so, you live in 'state.' You are not permitted to live in 'flux.' Former is a classical mandate. Latter is a quantum potential.

Classicists believe that love can be objectively legalized and thenceforth legally mantained in a 'state' of matrimony. Is that real? Didn't your young love evolve into another reality? Didn't you suddenly find yourself in an unbearable relationship with an objective control freak? Didn't each of you enter a war of who controls whom?

Why? Dialectic! State! Immutability! Absence of adaptation! Hegemonic OSFA control of rule of law by 'state' and 'religion.' Nearly total loss of individual freedoms. Error!

Then classical Demos will society milks you like a barned cow until you die. An objective matrix of OSFA 'state.'

USA calls this "the dream."

If you bought into this crapola you have been put to sleep, hive drone narcotized by 'state' hegemons, dialectical ne'er-do-wells. Too bad for you. Sorry! Your bad.

Is there an alternative? If so, what is it? Is it better? How can we assess its betterness?

Doug has experienced what he would call "young love," genuinely, three times. All failed.

Doug has experienced mature love (In Scott Peck's sense.) one time. So far, it has succeeded. Thank Gn¤stic G¤d.

Why did Doug's young love experiences fail?

Of course, Doug can only offer his view and answer to that query. It distills to dialectical objectivity. Doug saw his first love (she walked up to Doug one evening, circa 1958, in Bell's Supermarket where Doug was working its produce isle, and introduced herself...unalloyed, gorgeous, bright, talented...for Doug it was heaven sent...) as an object to be possessed. He thought she was a woman (girl) he could own like chattel. Doug wasn't thinking about her in terms of her being a real human being for whom he should care and share. He was thinking only of his own needs while 'not' caring about her needs. Doug stupidly assumed her needs were like Doug's needs. Doug calls this, "ignorant objective SaS-ERP design." Rearrange first letters and we get 'dios.' Objective 'god.'

Similarly Doug repeated his mistakes over next 50+ years, two more times. For Doug, it takes a long time to learn, apparently. But Doug, like most of us, adhered diligently, assiduously white man's stupid 'state' and institutional-academic dialectic.

Doug's third mistake was after Doug had studied Pirsig's opus: ZMM and Lila. (Doug didn't read SODV until after he commenced his first and current success.). Doug, this time, learned his mistake. We do not even have to go quantum here to offer our finest exemplar: read old testament's Song of Songs: Five Meetings, a Climax, and a Conclusion. Love between two people is REIMAR complementary interrelationshipings where each Values other's rights above one's own. Self is important, however, in loving interrelationshipings other becomes above self and gn¤stic individual mutual respect reigns...n¤t society n¤r state. It is key to grasp here that 'becomes' implies directly that l¤ve issi æv¤luti¤nary pr¤cæssings.

Actually, that issi ihn Quantonicsese, a quanton(¤thær,sælf). Quantumly that 'little' quanton issi ihn a much larger quanton(G¤d,¤thær_sælf)). We show that quantum~generally as quanton(DQ,SQ), and quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality), and quanton(wu,yu).

Doug made a huge third mistake! He loved her but he didn't respect her freedom and free will. Sadly, Doug loved self more than he loved her. Problematically, Doug did n¤t understand that. He had to learn that at age 52! Sad, sad, sad...

After that, Doug vowed never ever to allow similar to happen in his life again.

Quantum reality to Doug's rescue...

Caveats? With only a modicum of quantum~comfidence Doug can say that both individuals in a love interrelationshiping have to, must, love other more than self. Without that there issi n¤ love interrelationshiping, there issi n¤ quanton(¤thær_sælf). Without that we still have dichon(other, self). SOM's Wall: still intact.

Blessings? When you love another more than self, even if they do not love you that way, you win and they win. But you owe it to yourself and your other to go separate ways. Your bashert(ah) awaits you and you must get on with your discovery process of he-r.

When you look into your lover's eyes, you are ihn he~r and s~he issi ihn you. Both of you become eidetically quantum~¤næ. Both of you are k~n¤w~ings that. That issi reality's look of love. Each of you wants more for other than for self. Each of you gives completely self to and for other. That is reality of love. It's similar (with which Doug has n¤ experience) love of a parent for a child and grand parents for a grand child.

This is blunt and in some realms blasphemous, but if you do n¤t have that, have n¤t worked to make that happen...start working on it nowings, else move on. Move on without regret. Unloved now has a modicum of respect and a better absence of love above a pseudo presence of love which is actually a lie.

There is a lot more to this, but you get our gist. That is of Value here.

Simply, Scott M. Peck wrote, "Love is y~our will to extend y~ourself for purposes of nourishing another's and then one's own spiritual growth." Doug paraphrased it in a more quantumesque reality. See Peck's The Road Less Traveled.

We had and are having a major intra family medical fright nowings. Doug needs to share and hopes it is of Value to all of you...

Doug - 2-30Jun2007.

On Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid...

Beth and Doug just bought an Elgato unit for a MAC G5 quad. Latter has four 2.5GHz processors and 10GB Ram. Doug does most Quantonics site work on it now with assistance from several other MAC production units in our 'shop.' Elgato's unit is neat and low cost. It allows us to archive much of our production video on about 1.5TB of LaCie storage. Too we can save TV programs like we do with our set top boxes. A huge failing of TV in general and cable TV in particular is a general inability to do random access to all content. This notion of having to watch when a program is being played by a 'station' is absurd in today's level and abundance of stream technology. Outlets should archive content and sell it (without ads) for a per view fee. We should be able to 'buy' a copy for our own local archive. Of course Apple, et al., are attempting to make that happen. But it isn't 'there' yet. We anticipate a revolution in how programming is offered. This current morass is an em-bare-assment to entertainment technology.

Females in Medicine...

Our News is late! In a way, we have had a medical month from hell... Actually, it isn't that bad. Beth had surgery which shut her down for about a week. Plastic surgeons made it nearly scarless. She is feeling fine now.

Within weeks of that Doug had a lithotripsy done on a 4mm stone in his left kidney. A couple years ago Doug switched to a female urologist. She is just excellent and competent and brilliant! We went to our nearby surgery center of which she is part owner. Nearly all staff there, including her anaesthesiologist, are female. Her anaesthesiologist is just marvelous! Radiologist and one other assistant are male. All female nurses and office staff.

Doug arrived at 06:30 and was out by 10:30. Stone is gone! Really!

Anaesthesia, in 2007, is amazing folks! Doug went under like a dream and came out rested and bright and cheery. Not like 'old' days at all. I had blood in first whiz, but almost none next few times and now it is 'normal.' I have almost no pain and was able to start work immediately in a very comfortable Ekornes 'Vegas' chair made in Northern Europe. No gravel yet, so lithotriptor did a good job with maximum of 3000, two per second, focused sonic hits on that stone.

What Doug wants to convey here is that medicine is still objective, still mostly classical, but we can enhance its quantumness by using female practitioners. Doug, personally, has had it with male testosterone in medicine. I'm switching to (almost) all females: general practitioner, opthalmologist, already switched to female urologist, heart specialist, and only one male exception who is a lower-testosterone jewel in a male rough: our (Beth's and my) dermatologist, who probably just saved Beth's life.

Our view is that medicine is going female and that almost innately begs quantum~medical~gnosis. We're going to be doing more of our own medical work at home, locally, and when we go out for specialty work, we're gonna use females. Males appear to us as incompatible with countless subjective aspects of competent medical service. Doug's views, n¤t the views.

Doug - 4Jul2007 (lateness borne of unexpected medical events...).



Thank you for reading,

Doug - 1July2007.

See you here again in early August, 2007!



To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2010 — Rev. 6Dec2008  PDR — Created 2Jun2007  PDR
(25-26Jul2007 rev - Correct 'Irenæus' typo. Add 'Polishing parallel skills Intel link.')
(6Dec2008 rev - Add 'omnivalent' link. Replace some fonts with gifs.)