That was quick! Thanks for the reply. Mitch speaks for himself,
generally. Classicists at ER yoga centre thought our views were
pretty out-there, and too intellectual. Now Doug thinks I'm in
cahootes with ERs, I can't win ;-). Yeah ERs would generally have
a dichon(nirvana, samsara).
Here is a section of our dialog to date. I know I've embellished
it a little, but it makes it a more dramatic read.
I
simply do not know how to help you with this. It reminds Doug
of Dan Glover's belief that DQ is radically dichon(s, o) excluded-middle
ineffable. Clearly that is wr¤ng since Mitch, Dan, Doug,
et al., emerged from DQ.
Then Mitch replied with a slight smirk: "Hey Doug, were you
referring to my phasement, or your statement? :-D"
I'm just messing a bit Doug. But Doug has a seemingly classical
'ever', amd Mitch has a marked quantum '~never'. But really, I
sense what you're saying, I know you're speaking quantumly. To
us it may be a tell that you are quite taken by this 'waking mode',
but thats another story.
We thought your 'higher beings' referred to beings way beyond
any current earth beings, maybe multiversing beings. We don't
see enlightened earth beings as being able to dematerialize generally.
So yes they would still inhere substantial waking modes. IMO beings
which have evolved way beyond our system would only inhere EIMAing
skerics [unsure Mitch's semantic here: ghosts, vestiges? 1Jun200
- Doug] of our waking modes. In our view sometimes QR approaches
classical absolutes, but ~never reaches them.
IMO higher beings EIMA waking physial reality through us, amd
through their own pastings in some cases. But they can ~not fully
experience it as we can. Mainly because they can't be as deluded
as we can. That's why we think we are here! But what is us, amd
what is them, ~no line is drawn.
Mitch seems to randomly jump twixt 'I' amd 'we', I like
it, amd so do we. [We are an quantum~c¤
ærænt
I of us.
Quantum~i
Mitch.
Hi Doug,
We would be very surprised if Doug caught us stuck in a classicism.
We feel we haven't suffered any such problems for years. We do
sometimes use dichons as "barebones" to animate with
quantum living muscular fleshings, but thats ~always intentional
amd conscious. Our mistakes now are usually to do with over-simple
quantum memes. We have to communicate with classicists daily,
so we have developed a kind of classical language way of speaking
of underlying quantum memes. We use terms like 'intermingling',
'mostly', 'kind of', 'to some degree', 'affects', someti
hmes 'ings' etc, a great deal of the ti
hme. We think we are so at ease with ~not
being caught in words that we can use whatever language, amd our
underlying quantum ideas remain fully quantum. Daily we have become
used to quantumizing classicists speech real ti
hme,
amd speaking quantum ideas with ~classical language real ti
hme. We don't feel we any longer make
classical mistakes at conversation speed, so we can't see it happening
in slower written work, touch wood. We say this hoping Doug will
always look for a quantum interpretation of what we say, amd agree/omnisagree
on that level, unless we've stated otherwise. We know our Qlanguage
is very limited but we have learned to maintain focus in flowing
ideas over words/ings. We are aware that most people have flickering
focus in this regard, amd thus are far more prone to word assumptions.
We are lucky to rarely suffer this debilitation of thought.
Of course then, we say ALL are quantons q(nirvana,samsara), q(sleepings,wakings),
q(s,o), q(DQ,SQ), etc. Our Qlanguage is quite limited, but it
seems ~no matter how far we Qevolve we still get perceived as
a classicist. We feel we end up in omnisputes on the wrong level.
Can Doug convert classical language to quantum interpretations
real ti
hme, hence in writing more
easily? Though, the comcepts we speak of are usually far deeper
amd more challenging than most real ti
hme
conversations. We feel dialog would be smoother if Doug could
always investigate Qinterpretations frist. Sorry 'bout language
limitations, we are learning more but don't need it too desperately.
We think if Doug ponders what he has done with d(o, s) to q(s,o),
he may see that we have done ~exactly 'the' ~same with d(wake,
sleep) to q(sleepings,wakings). Then any omnisagreement Doug may
have with ours, we can say "Doug did ~exactly ~same".
We ~never saw wakings mode as opposite sleepings mode, we have
merely kind of dissolved wakings, like Doug has done with 'object'.
It may have appeared that way because we spoke of how classicists
have made said quanton approach a dichon, just like classicists
have made d(o, s).
But we agree, each to their own individual Chautauqua. We have
~no ~reasons, desires, or rights to force our views onto anyone
else.
It's up to Doug if he wants to respond to that or ~not. For us,
we feel we have said enough.
Hey Doug, sorry to mention this at this late stage, but the last
line of anti-social level we described is a bit misleading. We
meant it to be humorous. We lost our copy of that email but it
was something like "Intellectuals are social failures trying
to hide their heads in books, away from reality!". This is
what we feel is an underlying assumption to varying degrees in
social people. If they did not perceive social level as superior,
they couldn't maintain their focus in it. We over exaggerated
it for humor purposes (bad joke, badly written we think). Actually
we dislike this assumption possibly more than any other, in that
level. It's a feeling we get because socials have ~no means to
perceive omnifferences twixt classical intellectuals amd quantumists,
its a snub toward all other levels amd each level would do this
to a degree, lesser so in higher levels. We are in an anti-intellectual
society at any rate. We umderstand that there is a devolving aspect
within classical intellectuals, but altogether, the way we have
rated it, we perceive it as a higher level. We like intellectuals,
we find them a sweet relief from repetitive social triviality.
We really get excited when we meet an intellectual, there is much
to discuss, now we avoid where possible social people its so lame
amd boring to us (95% of the ti
hme).
A bit like socials might see our emails for example :-). If we
could change that last line we might say "Intellectuals hide
their eggheads in books, away from the REAL social reality! :-D"
Maybe that could be more clarifying, don't know?
And thats a rap.
MQTTY,
Mitch.
An email from DMD commenting on
Mitch's email...
Hey Doug!
Thanks for sharing Mitch's cordial, informative and candid
letter.
As student of Quantonics for some years, we are well aware
of some of Mitch's stated omnifficulties in regards to QTMs vav
CTMs. Unless quantum-acculturated from birth, students have
to struggle with years upon years of relentless classical indoctrinations,
which become so ingrained as to be felt 'natural'.
We view 'unconscious' in these comtextings as 'habitual-rote-unthinking';
we assert through Quantum Tentative Persistence (QTP), students
can, at their own pacings, and via occasional stimulus proddings
from others, scale SOMitic partitionings at various levelings.
Classical habits die hard, and as Doug has said, Quantonics
requires a lifetime of study and application - Quantum recapitulationings
are vital! IOO, QTMs vav CTMs need to be comparatively evaluated
via Pirsig's genuine metric: Better!
We evaluate-judge etc. due to quantum recognition that change
is generally good, to recognize quantum-wave fluxings as our fundamental
selvings is good, to recognize that QTMs are superior to CTMs,
and so on.
Mitch mentions 'can't move until he breaks initial assumptions'
- appears classical stuckness to us. This appears honest
appraisal, but simulphasically, this admission should serve as
vital impetus for enhanced studyings QTMs.
IOO, clingings to obsolete, outmoded CTMs is due partially
to comtinued viewings of much Value in them, with comsequences
that CTMs compete and comflict with QTMs for better, and partially
because retaining habitual classical thunkings(as in sunkings)
is easier than efforts required learning novel quantum comcepts.
Quantum discipline is needed or else student will wallow much
longer in static stickiness than should be.
We interrelate well since we studied Eastern philosophies-religions
for many years and their concepts served us quite well, plus we
are somewhat lazy and procrastinating. Why should we change?
Fortunately DMD k-new BETTER VALUE when he saw it and quantum
leaped-decisioned from classically vague Pantheism to quantum
OEDCic-loopings ontology
and quantum likelihood omnistributionings.
Mitch mentioned 'basically classical self', we k-now that idea
of ONE fundamental self is delusional, rather we are many selvings
in many comtextings on many scalings. And to recognize we
can only be partially aware of our omnistributed selvings is to
recognize that consciousness(on its many levelings, e.g.,
unconscious,subconscious, conscious,
supraconscious, etc.) as SQ
will forever be junior to endless vastness of DQ.
Another classical term Mitch uses is 'soul': ponder
immutable dichon vav mutable quanton. IOO, 'soul' is relatively
obsolete concept, compared to quanton(DQ,SQ),
i.e., our 'quantum essencings'. Also mention of 'higher
selves', 'inner self', etc., we k-now that in quantum reality
direction and location are irrelevant! Omnidistributed-selvings
are both EIMA and BAWAM compenetrating, commingling, co-in-side-ing
QLOings. (Doug note: If we view comsciousnessings
as both fluxings and pluralings (i.e., Bergsonian animate multiplicities,)
then we can view con(m)sciousnessings and soulings similarly.
We can say then that soul and consciousness can be viewed worse
as static objects and better as fluxing quantons. Doug
- 2Apr2010.)
IOO, quantum learning (incrementalizations of our quantum stagings)
involves relatively loose creative-emerscent processings of Preparation,
Incubation(Frustration), Illumination(Insight) and Verification.
These processings are non-mechanical and EIMA coobsfect
each other in their QLOic comminglings; quantum verification in
particular, omniffers from classical verification in its preponderant
subjectivity, i.e., involves more tentative intra-agreeings among
selvings. Who decides? Classically, bureaucrats, teachers,
preachers, administrators, politicians, specialists, experts,
pundits, et. al., but those of us who are quantum savvy k~now
better.
Concerning dreams, we have not discussed them at length, e.g.,
vivid, lucid, premonitive, nightmares, wish fulfillments, etc.,
but we have discussed conscious-subconscious phasicities as quanton(awake,asleep).
While we have found quantum studyings to be omnifficult at
times, we can say that for most part we can say that challengings
they pose are both stimulating and fun. We think that
is an appropriate dynamic attitude and promotes sense of optimism
that we comsider desirable when approaching anything so formidable
and potentially self-defeating as Metaphysics.
We have a very bright friend who once quipped, 'We don't study
Metaphysics, nothing to get my teeth into.' Well Doug, we
have you, Pirsig, Bergson, James, Stein, Bohm, et. al. to
thank for delivering some deep, tenacious bitings. Many
scrumptious morsels tasted and to be tasted!
Many Betterings,
~DMD
Aren't these two people some kinda wonderful? None of you believed
anyone was actually using, let alone living, Quantonics did you?
SURPRISE!!!
What a thrill for Doug...in his sixty-fifth year on Earth.
What a fabulous thrill!
Doug - 1Jun2007.
...
Thank you for reading,
J
index
Arches
To contact Quantonics write to or call:
Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT
©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2014 — Rev. 3Apr2010
PDR — Created 1Jun2007 PDR
(3Apr2010 rev - Make page current. Add
Doug note to DMD's response.)
