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

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

No editorials for June, 2007.

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..." ?

June, 2007 News

This edition of TQS News is dedicated to Mitch in Australia who doesn't like Doug beating up on Hillary Clinton...

(Doug adds some punctuations. Doug adds some [] brackets. Doug adds some links. Doug corrects as many spellings as he could. Doug only sprinkles a few comments in brackets, here and there.)

Subject: Clintonistas and friends
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:29:31 +0000

Hi Doug,

Liked your recent news about not hating hate. I myself have experienced that doing so sucks you into the hate paradigm. Hate is a strong focus of energy. What we focus on we intermingle, then become. Not knowing this we may become that which we were originally furthest from. Interesting phenomena. I no longer believe in evil. Belief in evil is a delusion, and creates negative feelings. Negative feelings are abstractions. Low value actions are simply ignorance, not evil. When an apparent evil is understood for what it is, it dissipates. All reality seeks betterness (love, joy, happiness, God). Diversions from this path are delusions of mind, adherences are strengths of Heart. That's a handy pragmadigm to help deal with life's problems (opportunities). Can/do I act on it...judge me not by what I am, but by what I strive to become. Well ok, a quantum mix of these two, but my judgment leans heavily toward the latter, for it makes the former a mere impediment soon to be cast aside. Our imaginings already exist in our duration, its just a matter of when will they fully bloom.

We (we always refer ourselves "we' so we'll type it) liked your comments on the fact that we are all accumulations of high and low value, "excellence is not perfect" etc. We think that if every [hu]man would HONESTLY (sorry no italics) look in the mirror, at all his wrongs/immoralities throughout his life (not to mention his lesser evolved self prior this life), slight and large, in public or PRIVATE, his self opinion would be vastly reduced, he may even perceive himself despicable. But he would be able to modify his judgments of others to umderstand they have no evil (as above), and to judge morality with finer subtlety.

Anyway I always just have so much to say once I start. I'll try to make it quick and as I speaketh...

Ok, now for something different, I'm going to change-it-up by stating an omnisagreement. The above is why we have omnifferences with your Clinton opinions. His sex life does weigh into our overall umderstandings of him, and some possible struggles he may have, but to me it is light in morality. If he wants to do 'whatever' with consenting adults, then good for him; but that to me holds ~no moral judgment, but is personal choice. If 'whatever' is something omnifferent to the norm, I may understand it as twists in his psyche, or personal problems to be overcome, but basically empty of morality. Pirsig says "all is moral", true in a broad comtext, but to use that definition ubiquitously renders it meaningless (ie- Then lacking intelligence is an immoral act, making a mathematical mistake, putting anothers wish wrongly before your own etc). Morality, as we may specifically Q[uantum, uality, ua, etc.] use the term, begins with "treat others as you would have them treat you" , likewise, immorality begins basically when you hurt somebody, or do something bad to someone. So for Clinton morality only enters the picture concerning his wife, and that depends on what deal he has with Hillary. She may be of the belief that he is a pretty good catch regardless of his EIMAing tendencies. She probably was initially hurt by it but has learned its not a personal attack on her and stays in the deal because its still pretty beneficial, compared to the average Joe. If so, good luck to her, and her QTMs.

Why do I consider these QTMs? Well, why do we all have to have the exact replica complementary relationship? Surely its up to the individuals involved to vary their relationship as they choose, as they deem mutually beneficial and worthwhile. Especially considering it has ~zero affect on society and institutions. For instance, a person may wisely realize that the physical aspects of a relationship are the least important. But if you make a deal then it has a level of morality to uphold it, that level must be subtly judged.

As far as my beliefs concerning sex...It is criminally immoral to force sexual acts against someone's will (rape or paedophilia for example). Unusual desires which don't hurt anyone are basically amoral, though I believe them to generally be distortions in consciousness from multiple possible past choosings. The individual possibly damages themselves alone, and best overcome it sometime. Incidently, I think homosexuality is one of these amoral twists of consciousness away from nature (sorry Leonardo, Newton et al, but you still represent imperfect excellence as do many whose being splays-out upon the multiple omniffering individual EEE trial and error, and sometimes rocky, pathings of Q excellence). Not the flat OSFA can't-go-wrong society glorified highway. We also think that monogamy is against human nature (single static dichotomy, or for Quantumists: single relatively static quanton), and nature follows your EIMAing propagation meme. Personally we are monogomous in body (but not yet in mind) because we feel that the physial aught become unimportant. Hence, it is a natural tendency to have multiple partners which one should not feel ashamed of, but on higher levels becomes meaningless, and thus justifies all choosings. You once asked us a similar question: "Would Alpha Centaurians be monogamous?"...Would animals?

So then, worst case scenario is of Clinton cheating numerous times and Hillary didnt know. This, to me, is the only scenario which holds any real moral content. Breaking trust of someone close to him because they unwittingly made a deal against a natural urge he couldn't repress, or didn't try to. Well that is a strike in my book against Clinton for a lack of control, and immorality, its not a hanging case, its part of a difficulty that many struggle with. Naturally males struggle more with this, reasons for this can be found in the animal kingdom. Anyway to his overall character, its a relatively small but significant being amongst his multiple beings. Far more important to me (almost solely) is his aims of Q(working for humanity,selfishness). Second, would be his capabilities in said task. As an extreme example: we would rather be lead by the womanising Martin Luther King than the Faithful to his Mistress Adolf Hitler, or eternally monogamous Napoleon. I'm sure though that the majority, aided by media diversionary tactics of ripping out and displaying innards, would far prefer the squeaky clean later. Hmmm the distorted morality of a TV culture. Positive, positive, bright sun, happiness :)

Hey Doug, a couple of years ago you gave me a brief run-down on how many Qstudents there were, hows it going now ? Has it increased much?


Subject: RK
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 08:07:33 +0000

Hi Doug!

Thanks for the two lots of 12 answers, both are excellent, a lot for me to think about. You know the underpinning maths/physics formulae superbly. I've had strong affects from dust allergies all this week, hard to study. Think I'll do like last time and take it easy, slower but faster, probably respond once a week or so. I'm going down the South coast tomorrow for a week so I'll respond when I return. Just copied your review of SSotQ to study whilst I'm there, at Ulla Dulla.

We are warned not to sit too close to TV, if within 10ft. We sit within 3ft of computer screen without giving it a thought. I figure the artificial EMR bombardment probably degenerates cornea/retina. I sit about 8ft from my 19" screen. Though you probably know this, just wondering about ~10 hours per day though thats gotta tally up. [Doug is gradually losing his eyesight. Mitch is referring this... 1Jun2007.]

Tried a few times to copy your site. Doug I'd rather pay you than a copying programmer. Could I buy it on CD? I could pay money order. Then I could just go to your pay site for updates.

Doug said: "...antibiotics are great from a social and individual level but they are terror at any biological level." Brilliant Doug! Never thought of putting it that way. You know I've read of a number of Hindu, so called, enlightened beings. Well, Ramakristna lived ~150 years ago and is widely considered as one of the greatest. He was a very unorthodox, strange type of being with baffling methods. Anyway, one young monk, one of his disciples, was a alcoholic. Rather than the usual method of ordering him to abstain or be gone, RK told him to drink as much and as often as his heart desired. The other monks were infuriated, they couldn't believe RK would encourage such an abomination, and in the temple of God! They often complained of the drunken louts' anti-social behaviours, and of how it would appear to the visiting laity (social). RK would laugh at all the commotion (lila dance), and explained that the disciple had to live through the experience. After a couple of riotous years the monk's desire to drink suddenly vanished. And over time he became one of the wisest, most evolved and temperate of all the monks.

It could be argued that he was also apparently, or temporarily, anti-biological and even anti-quantum (neuron degeneration). Guess there is many weigh-ups. This struck me as wholly against western will-power and I have since experimented with it. For me it is a higher value mode than will-power, though I presume greatest of all value would be an affine fluxing BAWAM balancing. But there is a lot to be said for falling through a desire, for letting go of ego control, for umderstanding every facet by expanding till it implodes. Doug has supreme will-power so I wouldn't recommend it for him. Doug's will-power works well and thus is pragmatic for this life. We are an omnifferent kettle of fish, we go slower amd off-track to speed up.

Yeah o'course Doug can write what he perceives as moral, so can Mitch. Mitch likes Doug picking on politicians in general, and would even go further to say he doesn't think politicians have right to do what they do, because most the time they violate Gnostic Jesus' :" Do unto others...". That's where rights impinge others rights, and it is moral for us to step in and impinge the formers' rights. Same as what you were saying though you called it law.

Anyway, some parts of what I've written concerning the issues you may print in news are off topic. So print what parts you want. I know the parts about looking in the mirror etc. are not well written. But do as you perceive fit.

Oh, concerning me studying many subjects with QTMs, I've only read a couple of books on each, except spirituality as a supercategory of almost entire top list I gave you. But I have pondered them a lot. Doug's probably read more on just about all of them anyway, but I was just letting you know why I haven't read everything in site after all these tihmings.

And that leads me to Doug's narcoleptic autism. We didn't want to say anything before because it seems too out-there and unconfirmable. But this is in one of those fields that we mentioned that we have studied, but mainly pondered and experienced. Our explanation: well it's a type of spiritual experience, and certainly a quantum experience. Why? Because waking self is partitioned [To Doug this appears as SOM's wall. Mitch claims he intends more of a quantum islandicity... Latter is OK. Former is OK for SOMites, n¤t for MoQites and Quantumists. Doug - 1Jun2007.] from unconscious self. This partition is maintained via underlying CTMs, meaning that even quantonics students have not broken away from full grip of classicism. That took us huge tihmings to work out and is the basis for quantum psychology. That's why we don't get to read much because we can't move till we break initial assumptions. [See DMD's end comments at page bottom. Doug - 1Jun2007.] So this partition was temporarily bridged, from basically classical self to deeper levels of self (quasi-quantum, full-quantum, to beyond our imagination quantum selvings). Spirituality may call them 'higher selves', 'soul', 'spirit guides', 'inner self', etc; psychology may call them 'subconscious', unconscious', 'superconscious', etc. We would say that in sleep you switch from classical self to quantum inner selves. This is generally done in an EM way (jumps the classical wall). Occasionally there is some mixing, for instance lucid dreaming. These inner experiences are (not as psychology says) more real than our classically based everyday experiences, why? simply because quantum is higher. So in sleep we continue our evolution but in an expanded more whole self. When soul wants to communicate something to everyday self it must code it in everyday imagery as best it can. Soul is in deep sleep, and if you have any chance of understanding or remembering it must encode all the way down to lucid REM (outer reaches of inner self). Yours was a lucid dream which conscious self couldn't break out of. This disconnect is usually associated with astral travel. Likely higher self (soul) wanted to tell you something. Are spiritual experiences always right? They likely transmit something of extreme value, but of course it can also be distorted in the process. [Here is Doug's overly simple graphic of it:]

We delved a lot of this by practised lucid dreaming and Pirsig/Lila type homunculus observing subconscious sex imagery. We are k~now~ings a fragment of our greater selves, an abstraction, a relative isolate.

Happy journeys Doug,

Subject: square waves
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:20:33 +0000

Hi Doug,

Pirsig derived his classical s/o split from Eastern Religions (ERs). But we believe ERs are confused on these issues, amd Pirsig needed to tumble deeper. ERs get to a certain point and then say things like: "It is inconceivable, ineffable, beyond intellectual understanding". We had faith in QTMs. In trying to umderstand enlightenment we found that it could only be superficially brushed with QTMs, and still left many unsolvable problems. So we searched for a deeper meme.

New classical classification system:

The first classical split in reality is dichon(sleeping reality, waking reality)

Sleeping reality is assumed false/illusory. Waking reality is real/absolute truth.

Second classical split in reality is dichon(subject/object) dichon(waking consciousness, waking objects) dichon(core waking reality, fringe waking reality). Both sides of the dichon are subcategories of 'waking reality'.

'Core waking reality' is quasi-assumed false/illusory. 'Fringe waking reality' is real/absolute truth.

etc, etc.

First split is by far the most walled-off, isolating amd damaging to humanity. We are [quantum~]waving from sleeping reality to waking reality, but these wavings approximate 'square waves' due to massive classical walls. [This is a brilliant, light~filled metaphor on Mitch's quantum~intuitions. Doug - 1Jun2007.]

By quantumizing this first classical dichon, quantum pragmadigms can be vastly deepened, then broadened. We see this epiphany as so HUGE that it could almost be called a whole new deeper quantum system! Though we did use QTMs, amd any new deeper pragmadigm has natural IMs with previous digms at this level, so, with respect to Doug, we call it quantonics.

Best Regards,

Subject: RE: New 'classical' system?
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:36:47 +0000


No, its a rearrangement of what Pirsig thought was the classical system. Pirsig thought s/o was the first split, therefore, he missed where we 'actually' branched off from quantum reality. If one doesn't know this then it is near impossible to become a quantum being (~not just a quantum thinker but whole being). Now, Pirsig and quantonics emersced their ~systems relative to what they believed our classical system was. Why? Because to do so is ~right, we must evolve from where we are, and we must practice suturing schisms which are most important (highest value), from initial splits in reality and downward. Well, if we didn't know that s/o was a split, for example, we would not know how to suture it, or properly umderstand ourself, for instance we would continue habitually perceiving ourself as an isolate without realising that we are doing so. Our perceptions automatically give us illusory info of a s/o split and we would unwittingly fall for it. So we could quantumize the rest (lower value omnistinctions) but never really get to the nub of what we are doing. Also we would lack intellectual Qpower to create comcepts which emanate from beyond the s/o split.

Now, with the first split in classical reality we have discovered d(sleeping, waking), we can realize that we have created this partition and that its only 'delusional limited perceptual ranges' which keep superconscious, greater-self out. It is there all the tihmings but we habitually choose to block it out. So there is this far greater, smarter, multiversing being that we really are. But we perceive ourself to be only waking self. So if we truly want to become a quantum being we must suture waking amd sleeping selves. Eastern enlightened beings have probably sutured their conscious with unconscious, superconscious etc. They feel they are God, bliss, they can often manipulate physial reality, Why? Because they can manipulate it somewhat like the dream it is. Do you see how this connects Eastern religions, and that previously quantonics couldn't really account for much of it? You may ~not have much association with them. Do you see how it changes psychology from the getgo? It gives deep explanations as to what unconscious really is! How it formed. Why it formed. It shows how we are choosing to be a fragment of what we really are, and how to get back to our Godlike self. It very importantly switches the habitual quantum view and puts the sleeping self first. This means we are a dream, and a lower level one at that. And that aligns with a number of ancient religious views anyhow. When we said that soul codes in symbols to lower levels...waking life is the lowest level of symbols. Its a created and chosen learning from a higher self ( a self we become in sleep). Its more appropriate to say we sleep in waking life and are really alive when we call it sleep.

Some of that unsaid may not pertain to your question, my answer is 'yes', and we umderstand it all. We thought we showed originally how we were making "quantum' ~systems beyond the waking self. We also thought we showed that the classical split has analogues as quantum memes, and these are what is ultimately important. Doug, your emerscing quantonics relative to the classical system, right? Of course you are, often it just requires an EIMA and an 'ings', and sometimes it omniverges further from classicism when classicism seems to get too abstract. And thats why discovering a new assumption/split in classicism affects quantum versions...but massively when its a deeper assumption than any other, this of course changes the whole context and thus comtext.


Subject: RE: That is a way of viewing reality...
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:50:35 +0000

Hi Doug,

We have probably read 30-50 books on ERs amd spirituality topics, post quantonics. So we have tried to inhere their general patterns into QTMs. It takes much reading amd pondering in this area to begin to do so. We may be somewhat of an expert in this area, at least we think we may be, for quantum advancing it somewhat, in our eyes. It may be that some of it is individual only, or even based on false information from what we've read. Since the field is basically subjective it does suffer more from those possibilities. Though as classical~qauntumists there are many general trends and patterns twixt us, amd all of humanity. Without a fairly large base in these areas, amd without a longterm attempt to quantumize them, it is near impossible to umderstand the problems overcome by seeing quanton(waking,sleeping) in comtext we have described.

We probably got too excited over this epiphany. It IS just another meme. Its probably going too far to say "it almost creates a whole deeper quantum ~system". Its just hard to tell from here because it is so new. Big epiphanies or revolutions are often slight changes which put ALL in a new comtext. We'lll take it back about the Q~system thing.

We realize Doug knew of q(sleeping,waking) prior k-now-ings. EIMAing CTMs is often all that is needed, but with some areas the change is more marked. And this is where we often create the largest epiphanies. When a deeper Qchanging is needed, we sometimes label the former 'superficial quantumization'. This is not a derogatory term, superficial quantumization is needed, amd is often sufficient, amd is a great improvement relative to CTMs.

Anyways, the subtle, delicate manipulations to q(sleeping,waking) meme are: That it is the initial quanton in our reality, thats huge! That means that a genuine quantization of this meme, in being, would change our reality more than any other quantization of a meme could even get close to doing. Imagine a genuine quantization of the second meme q(s,o), that would change our sensory perceptions completely - we would perceive no division twixt ourselves amd all we perceive. Quantum students are k-now-ings this intellectually but don't directly experience it due to long-term SQ habits. Well the former quantization would dwarf the later. Anyways, knowing where this sits intellectually is very important, and clarifies our umderstandings. It shows who we really are amd why. It greatly deepens umderstandings of the pathings we must follow to get back to godings, dare we say, to become godings. To fully escape our classical prisons.

Doug/Pirsig says reality is basically subjective, instead of o over s. So we add that reality is basically all like sleeping mode, at deeper level 'deep sleep'. But for now we could just imagine it like dreaming REM mode, since we all have more experience with that than what I consider to be deeper quantum levelings (such as deep sleep mode). Anyways, one level at a time. So this profound reversal means that our waking mode is an abstract lower level part of a dream (dreaming mode). This is massive! since it reveals that all previous quantumizations have been done basically within this abstract lower level (yes, its open to dream mode, but simply giving it lip service, not residing in it). I'm saying we are still basically blocking ourselves from the core of ourselves, or core of reality. It's akin being open to subjective reality with quanton(o,s) but believing reality to be basically objective. This view is quantum wrong isn't it?

Sure it shows that all previous quantumizations have been done basically within a relatively abstract  lower level. But that is naturally what any higher/broader view does to its predecessors. This is no slight on quantonics, it is simply a QTM extension. And it is so deep that our mind is perceiving too far ahead of our experience (due ingrained SQ walls in being). So humanity can only add limited intellectual details to this pragmadigm, since our experience of it is greatly limited by our current stagings of evolution. This pragmadigm is very important to include when we need a broader perspective; when we are talking more subjective fields like humanities or spirituality; when we want to look at the pathings ahead, futurings for ourselves, or for humanity; when we want to evolve; when we want to ponder Godings, or ponder reality in its deeper forms; etc. But the heretofore quantonics pragmadigm based around waking mode is an IMing that humanity must go through first. Waking mode is where we currently (mostly) exist, its what we currently are, therefore its what we presently must physially deal with. It will likely take many tihmings for bulk of humanity to move beyond focus in waking mode (decades, centuries, millennia, we don't know). When it does it will no longer be focused in physial existence, physiality will be a mere subcategory scattered within (something like) an ~lucid dreaming existence, where we more obviously amd directly create our experiencings.

Doug have we used ";" correctly. We would like some punctuation symbol to work like that. To allow intermingling of many nuances (quantons). English grammar is biased toward single-concept sequences.

So waking focused quantonics digms will necessarily be main focus for bulk of humanity for many tihmings to come. Amd, in a way, are more pragmatic for masses nowings.

Pirsig postulated a new basic meme q(DQ,SQ). In our observation quantonics uses this sometimes but generally adheres multi-pragmadigmatic fluxings. We see q(waking,sleeping) basic meme as vastly more powerful amd accurate. We see q(DQ,SQ) as useful in dealing with lower level IMings twixt classical and quantum, but immerques (demerges? [Mitch coins a term here, and does it well. Doug - 1Jun2007.]) to minor patterns in higher quantum high-flux levelings. This is where q(waking,sleeping) comes into its own, so naturally over-arches all lower quantons.

We believe this to be as generally valid as quantonics is now, though maybe we are wrong, maybe it is individual. We will ~not bother you with writings on this in futurings.

Warm Regards,

Subject: relativism?
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:49:42 +0000

Hello there Doug,

We were just about to cut the thread, feel like chatting a bit so we'll continue a little, why ~not? Don't worry I'll cut amd run soon (lot of spare chat time though). Hope it doesn't annoy you?

Doug, we often signify QTMs versions with a prelude of 'quantum', 'Q', 'q', or '~'. We mainly add the 'prelude' only when vital, amd let reader assume quantum version otherwise. Sometimes we know the qword or add 'ings'.  'Prelude' is the wrong word, what word should we use here? Can't think of anything, grammar ain't my strong suit.

Are you saying that there is no order of quantons, or various values of quantons? This seems to us a stumble into CR (walling off value like that). Are you saying q(DQ,SQ) is proemial, meaning higher value than other quantons? We think you must value some quantons more because you said our quanton was quantum wrong.

We believe we did exactly what Doug did with q(s,o). That's what we tried to examplar in our two paragraphs you quoted. We may not have been clear here, and we've added some clarifications to paragraph below in square brackets[]. Text in []s refers to previous words.

"Doug/Pirsig says reality is basically subjective, instead of o over s. So we add that reality is basically all like sleeping mode [just like Doug says basically subjective], at deeper level 'deep sleep'. But for now we could just imagine it like dreaming REM mode, since we all have more experience with that than what I consider to be deeper quantum levelings (such as deep sleep mode). Anyways, one level at a time. So this profound reversal means that our waking mode is an abstract lower level part of a dream (dreaming mode). This is massive! since it reveals that all previous quantumizations [QTMs] have been done basically within this abstract lower level [waking reality] (yes, its open to dream mode, but simply giving it lip service, not residing in it) [speaking here of quantum memes]. I'm saying we are still basically blocking ourselves from the core of ourselves, or core of reality [quantum dreaming self]. It's akin being open to subjective reality with quanton(o,s) but believing reality to be basically objective [this sentence is a comparison of what we believe quantonics does habitually with q(sleeping,waking), compared to how it would look done to q(s,o), so quantons can be Qwrong]. This view is quantum wrong isn't it? [we are referring to quanton(o over s) in previous sentence, trying to draw ~agreement that it's Qwrong, so then it follows that it is Qwrong to not view q(sleeping over waking) ie- all is basically sleeping mode]."

Think we are using 'quantumization' and 'quantization' wrongly. We mean when you emerq a quantum phasement (or quanton) of a classical statement (or dichon). What's that called in quantumese?

Doug said: "Do you believe that all sentients in our multiverses sleep? Doug doubts that higher beings ever sleep."

Higher beings ~never wake :-)

Doug, so you think shell is looking for free energy? If they cotton-on to quantonics being a big step in that omnirection, then your pay site might strick a little jackpot. Maybe they might wanna employ you? Do you think it's possible?


Subject: Higher Beings
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:18:58 +0000

Hi Doug!

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.

            Doug said: "Doug doubts that higher beings ever sleep."

            Mitch said: "Higher beings ~never wake :-)"

Then Doug quickly retorted: "Bu()sh()!

            That is dialectic at its finest!

            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.

            To Doug, that is more Bu()sh()!"

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¤hærænt I of us. Quantum~ihndihvihduahlly amd ~s¤ciahlly. 1Jun2007 - Doug.]

Warm Regards Doug,


Subject: Mitch has been dichon cleansed
From: mitch mcdonald
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:31:59 +0000

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', sometihmes 'ings' etc, a great deal of the tihme. 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 tihme, amd speaking quantum ideas with ~classical language real tihme. 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 tihme, hence in writing more easily? Though, the comcepts we speak of are usually far deeper amd more challenging than most real tihme 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 tihme). 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.


An email from DMD commenting on Mitch's email...

Subject: Mitch's E-Mail.
From: DMD
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:46:45 -0700 (PDT)

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,                                                


Aren't these two people some kinda wonderful? None of you believed anyone was actually using, let alone living, Quantonics did you?


What a thrill for his sixty-fifth year on Earth. What a fabulous thrill!

Doug - 1Jun2007.


Thank you for reading,




To contact Quantonics write to or call:

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

©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2014 — Rev. 3Apr2010  PDR — Created 1Jun2007  PDR
(3Apr2010 rev - Make page current. Add Doug note to DMD's response.)