This is our October, 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 October News

Ever imagine how 'neocons' seems a powerful analogue of "new convicts," "novel criminals," some folk who should be fenced off and left to rot? Seems apropos Bu()sh()'s latest mercenary garbage. And McCain't too! They've lost it folks! While McCain't is claiming they are winning? Every day, every month... Just more mercenary DIQheaded scalarbation! Classical social war patriarchal orgasms! When one is dialectically stuck. Immersed immutably in mechanical coprolytics, how may one refer that as "winning?" They see their stux as "infallibility." But that exhibits their total ignorance, doesn't it? "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence." Paul Pietsch. Doug - 23Sep2007. Do you grasp physical omnifferencings twixt classical velocity and classical speed? It is good to do so since it helps you see an aspect of quantum reality which is real while its classical analogue is clearly bogus. Classically velocity integrates distance, so if you return to 'same place,' then calculated velocity is zero. From classical velocity's conspective, if you travel some 'distance' and return to where you started, you 'classically haven't gone anywhere.' Have you gone anywhen? And Einstein said space and time are 'same,' 'identical.' See CTMs are absurd! And here is what makes them really absurd: they call other non-CTM ways of thinking "absurd." Example? If you drive to grocery store and back 'home,' classically your velocity (mean) is zero. (I.e., integrated 'distance' in a classical 'zero momentum reference frame' is zero. Obviously bogus, right? Velocity is a bogus classical notion, since quantum reality has absolute and unstoppable motion as made lucid by pendular action, ad occulos. But is distance traveled classically 'zero?' Can we ethically use classical 'no' tions of 'zero momentum?' N¤! Every second you drive to grocery store, shop, and return home Earth moves 18 miles (30km) in its cyclorbit around Sol. Compound that cyclorbitally with Sol's 180 miles (300km) per second peregrination around Milky-Way and Milky-Ways ???? miles per second cyclorbicity around its cluster, etc. So, now, what exactly is your velocity...on your trip to store. Where were you when you left? Where were you when you 'returned' 'home.' For fun, then "When were you when you left?" "When were you when you returned?" Are 'when' and 'where' an Einsteinian 'identity?' ... Is it patently evident to you now that Einstein was an idiot? Yet 'classical society' still celebrates his 'genius.' It's like Karl absconditus Rove calling GW Bu()sh() "a genius." Sheer idiocy borne of a perfect political storm of socially-celebrated "ideal political invariance, ideal political neocan't intransigence." Eidetically then, Bu()sh(), too, ad occulos is an idiot! USA's 'the decider' idiot! Why doesn't classical velocity work, even as a concept? It's based upon intransigent, radically mechanical convention called geometry. But geometry, much like neocan't thingk-king, is bogus! "But, but, but, Doug that's absurd!" N¤, dear reader it issi n¤t absurd. For same reasons we called Einstein "an idiot," we can call geometry "absurd." What is classical geometry's founding axiom? Do you know? Equality. Geometry's basal supposition: Intervals may classically, objectively, absolutely be assessed as 'equal.' (Aristotle's A=A.) Interestingly, this is what Einstein used to retain Platonically-ideal classical objectivity in his 'theory of relativity.' He called it "invariant geometrical interval." Leibnitz had already warned all of us about impossibility of establishing radical mechanism, radical objectivity of any interval. Einstein, stupidly, ignored Leibnitz! Classically an interval may be measured absolutely. But quantum reality says we cann¤t measure Cartesian locus absolutely due absolute motion of reality. Essence, quintessence of Zeno of Elea's four paradoxes. Observe how all this demoralizes SOM's classical formal notions of 'fact,' and 'truth.' Measurement to arbitrary precision is impossible, even practically in a classical world. Measurement itself is subjective (quantum) so any geometrical notion of equality is simply bogus, folks! Geometry's founding axiom is bogus! Geometry is bogus! As Doug has written, "One notion that is incredibly important to grasp here is that all 'as practiced' logic and mathematics [and thing-king] on Earth today find their bases in Aristotle! Few understand that he was just wrong! To us, that is a major catastrophe for our world. It is the key SOM Disablersee Key Disablers of nearly all thinking on Earth at Millennium III's emergence. Perhaps even more important: Aristotle infects everyday judgment, society, law, epistemology, ethics, politics, and so on. It is an unmitigated disaster of maltuitive thought. We've lived with it for 2500 years. It is nowings rent and purchase for change." Classical thing-king is bilge, folks! CTMs are bilge, folks! Its a conventional, contrived naïve folly of mentally invalid hylic-psychic minds. ... [Vehicle] Speed does 'not' integrate positive and 'negative' distance... Can distance be classically negative? A quantum tell... "What tell Doug?" Quantum space issi flux, and all flux is positive, thus quantum reality issi positive! That tell leads, by QTM intuemic inference, to others: gravity issi flux, mass issi flux, time issi flux, etc. issi flux. Doug - 24Sep2007. Doug's been think~king more about sonoluminescence lately. Something weird has been bugging Doug. It's this: Folks at Purdue valiantly have been looking for neutron radiation as evidence of fusion. They are not finding it persistently and consistently. That begs a question. Do other forms of energy other than fusion offer competition with fusion, and perhaps do so less dangerously? If so, What are they? Doug's recent vibrating string opus in his review of Banesh Hoffmann's, The Strange Story of the Quantum, Act II offers a clue, a very important clue wethinks. If you read that link, you should not come away from it without having accepted a non neutron radiation view of sonoluminescence. You should surmise an alternative way of seeing a potentially unlimited free energy tap absent any memeos of fusion and neutron radiation. That's better isn't it? Use Doug's String Opus there to imagine what happens to any photon when it is accelerated at an almost unlimited rate. Isn't that what is really happening in our sonoluminescence bubble? Doug says right here, that is what is happening! You read it here, as far as we know, first. Sonoluminescence isn't fusion, it's very, very high energy photonic emission. All we need do is engineer means to sustain it. Doug's String Opus explains how, but we can offer an overview here. Photons, classically, have two kinds of energy: color, and kinetic speed of photon. Most classicists default to mechanical posentropy when theorizing about this. They leave out zeroentropic (bosonic, integer spin) energy. They wholly dismiss any notions of negentropic (isoflux, spin~absent, reserve~energy) energy as "absurd." Quantumly, where does all that extra non fusion energy come from during sonoluminescence? Easy answer: zeroentropy and negentropy. A boson's zeroentropic 'color' frequency (extreme 'blue,' e.g., x-rays and above, isn't ihn our visual bandwidth...) is essentially unlimited! Now how does sonoluminescence produce femto-second terawatt pulses of energy? By increasing photons' color frequencies and perhaps by exceeding kinetically light speed. If that process tears fabric of negentropy's isoflux, thus rectifying it somehow, then we also achieve a femto-second "reserve energy" tap!!! See! Free energy really is just around quantum reality's edgings of k~now~ings. Doug - 24Sep2007.

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

Month:

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY MAY SE

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

You are here:

Topics:

A Novel Philosophy in Town... Hume's Dilemma... Hume's Law...

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..." ?

October, 2007 News:

On Jollys Fast VNC...

Doug, recently, has been a big user of VNC. Until Rob Griffiths at MACOSXHints recommended JollysFastVNC Doug was using CotVNC (Chicken of the...).

Rob said Jollys is FAST, so Doug tried it. Indeed it is much faster than CotVNC. Plus it allows one to VNC-work on two 20" G5Quad screens from a MACBook Pro Core 2 Duo with a 17" screen. Latter is a very big deal in Quantonics. CotVNC can't even begin to do that (screen size of host has to match client in order to see whole screen; by comparison JFVNC allows proportional sizing of whatever screens you are working with; if you add scrolling ctrl-Zoom qua to that, you can do almost whatever...

Jollys is fast too in switching from client to host and back.

Methinks there may be other problems, but two big ones for Doug are Command-F and Command-W. In CotVNC those commands affect the client (cpus VNC'd), but if you are VNCing a cpu and type Command-W...JollysFastVNC quits: FAST! It's easy to go back, but it is inconvenient as hell. Doug is slowly learning to use App's API menu to quit it at client level.

Command-F is a much used 'find' in nearly all app's, but JollysFastVNC thinks it means "go to full screen." Again, we must, at least tentatively, learn to use API menu to access client App.'s find.

Doug is sticking with JollysFastVNC since we just upgraded to 1000/100 routers and hubs. Typing in a client app from a host VNC is real time now. Whoopeee!

We can even do Illustrator on a legacy G4 Titanium 1GHz laptop almost real time. Very good. Very neat.

Doug.

On Dionne Jr's. The Liberal Moment...

You, most of you, are k~now~ings how Doug hates our current political situation. 'Conservatives' are con artists. 'Liberals' are consummate liars. Both adhere dialectic, but 'Cons' are monists and 'Libs' are pluralists. On that basis alone, one must choose Liberals. But Doug finds Liberals of, for example, Clintons' persuasions, as criminal as Conservatives.

At least Conservatives' deceit is uniform. One may easily assess it. MoveOn.org has done that just recently. Exemplar: "General Betrayus." But he is ¤nly following "the decider's" Bu()sh() orders and canonic, orthodox, çatholiç policy. Recall that Colin Powell did same, early on in this right wing hate-filled inquisitional nightmare.

Again we ask, "What is wr¤ng here?"

B¤th parties aræ dialectical!

Also notice implicit dialectic in "two parties." Political bivalency. Two valuedness. SOM's wall firmly instantiated twixt Cons and Libs. EOOO(Libs, Cons)! 'Di' gital either Cons or Libs! Just more unsound dialectic, folks! Spawn of monism. Dialectic adheres, avers, and abides monism. Monism is parent of dialectic child. Libs call their monism "universalism and totalitarian secular 'equality.'" Cons call their monism "whole free-market globality," however, it is only totalitarian religious fascism under a guise of dialectical EOOO(lose, win) 'democratic' capitalism. Cons call it "evangelism." But Libs and Cons both wors(e)hip monism while they both similarly and hypocritically role-play their own pseudo versions of "diversity." Our current political parties are politically brain dead, conventionally and conveniently ignoring individuals and ignoring US' proemial guide: our Constitution. All three branches of USA's government are neutered by their COORs immersion in pro social, pro society, pro state politics. Both Libs and Cons have utterly failed in attempts to nurture healthy protonotional local- and foreign-policy political ecosystems. In Doug's view they have failed due their intransigent inability to dump, rescind their current intellectual, dialectical claptrap.

Why do Libs, most of whom are pluralist Cultural Relativists, still adhere two-valued logic? Pluralism innately decimates monism and that decimates dualism's EOOO, bivalent, two-valued logic!!! William James made that wholly unambiguous. Pragmatism is n¤t two-valued. Pragmatism is animate; quantum~pragmatism is omnivalent, and process~animate, and etc...

"Truth is [quantum] process[ings] happening to an idea." William James, in Chapter 6 of his Pragmatism.

Doug's brackets.

We prefer that James had used 'ideas.' Ditto Richard Dawkins.

Ask yourself a Key Enabling Question: "What does William James mean by, 'Truth is a process happening to an idea?'" It appears to Doug that James is paraphrasing what Henri Louis Bergson might have said, "Truth is durational." However, we must remediate that, mustn't we? Why? There is classical duration and there are quantum durationings. classical duration - "perpetual state," vis-à-vis quantum duration - "perpetual flux." So we QELR classical duration as quantum duhrati¤n. Now we may easily illustrate Bergsonian quantum, "truth is duhrati¤nal." We show our comparison, then, like this: classical duration - "perpetual state," vis-à-vis quantum duhrati¤n - "pærpætual flux." Doug - 3Oct2007.

Two politically reified, mostly excluded-middle systems is an abomination of dialectic 'reason,' an abominable social pattern which, as Heraclitus suggests, is war! And that is just what we observe now in USA: war twixt Libs and Cons, with public mostly moving away from hate-filled neo Cons. Dialecticians call it 'rational reason.' It isn't reason though in a strict sense that all it does, all 'rational reason' does, is emit endless oxymora and unintended consequences which dialecticians refer "Mulligans," "Murphies," and "Catch 22s." Why? Dialectic is unreal. Dialectic presupposes Platonically ideal, concrete, formal, and state-ically, state-mentally, fundamentally stable and independent objective characteristics and properties as representative of reality. N¤næ of those supp's. is quantum real, folks! Dialectic reason, which at least Western Culture uses almost 'exclusively,' is intellectual, hylic-psychic garbage, folks.

Dionne sees opportunity here for Libs. Dionne apparently does n¤t fathom yet dialectic's political metastasis. Cancer of political mind, aperio.

It is interesting to compare Dionne's quotes of Cons to what Libs say and believe (See The Chronicle Review, 7Sep2007 issue, pp. B6-9):

Dionne writes, "Something has changed."

"That something is the administration of George W. Bush, the 'catastrophe' — to use Harrington's formulation — that has saved the left from 'political impotence.' Voters unlike theorists, respond less to ideas than to performance, less to grand promises than to results. They look to political parties and movements, as the Republican pollster David Winston likes to say, less as repositories of ideology than as tools to solve problems. The tools of Republican conservatism are broken, shattered on the false expectations of easy victory in Iraq, on the abject failures in New Orleans, and on the overreach of a brand of moral conservatism ill-suited to a moderate country." Isn't this thelogos just abominable? Another child of monism: the. Too, 'moral conservatism' is an oxymoron. Why? Conservatism is an 'objective monism,' and morality is at best subjective.

Cons are guilty, massively, of anachronistic imperial kingshi[p] gloat. They cann¤t win without gloating. Our military has been trained to thingk that way: semper fi, which is an explicit impossibility, even dialectically. Libs despise gloat. Their view exposes their own dialectic! EOOO(ungloat, gloat).

"Pride goeth..."

"Backbone" of Cons' notional ilk viewed from a Chaldæan, Kalduan perspective, becomes a code word for "...monism is deceit..." It's like requesting your followers to turn to rock-headed stone. Cons like that! DIQheads like that: perpetual 'state.' Ideal immutability. See Doug's May, 2005 review of Michael P. Lynch's Liberal Passion.

Of course Cons' 'backbone' stands infirmly on monism, and that is ultimately what shall defeat them. It is evident, transparently, that Cons are losing now, politically. Too, it is evident they are losing their Iraq War. Only way we can see that they can save a win is to nuke the entire middle east, but that would be an ignoble end for USA. Libs who try to have 'backbone' like Cons are, in Doug's opine, foolish.

But why, Doug?

Cons' 'rock' is stuck. It's incapable of adaptation. You observe that directly in Bu()sh(), i.e., his incapability to change strategies: "Stay the course." "I'm the decider." His stux sux! His stux exposes (c)rudely his backboned absence of qua to evolve. Bu()sh() and McCain't claim we're winning with that approach: "We leave, we lose. etc." Non adaptability is a perfect insecurity requirement. To make that even more clear...mechanical systems are ideally insecure...and you can't become any more mechanical than to be a Conservative. Backbone is insecure. Stux sux! Exhibit? Our battle strategies are antiques from centuries past... Our weapons are modern but our strategies are mildewed. Our leadership is mentally addled. Exhibit? MoveON.org's courageous assessment of Betrayus. Presidents and military leaders hate bad news, so they manufacture McCain'tesque disinformative propaganda to fake good news. Bogus! Transparently leadersh() lies! Enigmatically, Libs have strangely begun worseshiping Cons' 'backbone.' Doug. (Doug is taking great liberty with phonemic 'spelling' for emphasis! )

Muslims are gonna kick their asses (they currently are and have been for a long time...), not other way around, folks. Muslims are ¤nly rock-headed about their religion, they are anything but rock-headed about fighting. Muslims have millennia of experience. Bu()sh() has NO experience!!! Isn't it apparent? He acts like this is a football game! He's a political Daddy's-boy-trust draft-avoiding coward (or just plain stupid...either way...)! Bu()sh() knows and understands nothing about fighting compared to Muslims. If he knew anything about fighting, US's Iraq War would have finished long ago. Bu()sh() taking on Middle East is like Doug trying to go one-on-one with Michael Jordan. (Doug fairly well understands his individual fallibilities; Bu()sh() isn''t even close to fathoming his personally profound limitations!)

What makes all of this just horrible is that whole damnable administration lives on lies and monistic deceit and Bushagain conceit. Doug.

Dionne is optimistic, for good and viable reasons, re: Libs future, "Partisans of the left are prone to extended bouts of doubt, introspection, and self-criticism that are nonetheless rooted in a view that the ultimate triumph of their cause is inevitable, that history is on their side." We agree with this, but attributing history is induction. And induction is a vailed and failed dialectical notion. [Doug's use of 'vailed' here is in a sense that induction has had to bow to its successor: quantum~stochastics.] What takes them away from Cons, significantly, is Dionne's the Libs "...are prone to extended bouts of doubt, introspection, and self-criticism..." To make this quantum real and n¤n dialectical allow Doug to quote Paul Pietsch, "Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence." This kills Cons in almost all ways. Cons run on automata of canon, axiom, state-ic truth, rules, nomos, principle, status quo, historical induction, dialectic, etc. Those are all critical failure factors. They are all critical insecurity factors! You've heard of CYA? Let's add to Cons' list of 'blewits' CFF and CIF.

But Dionne exposes his own social monism, which too is deceit in this statement, "...the left must embrace a program that 'will radically improve the conditions of life of everyone in society...' ...from an important author on the left." What is that important author assuming? OSFA! Monism! That's just as deceitful as Bu()sh()'s Cons approach.

Libs want to achieve a social monism, a unification via social wholeness-engineering of a OSFA culture.

But wholeness may not be socially designed, socially architected, socially engineered. Wholeness is an emergent property of evolutionary adaptation. And natural wholeness isn't OSFA. Natural wholeness as described for us by Mae-wan Ho is a coherent multiplicity of individual autonomies. To classical Libs and Cons alike that is just and simply absurd. But look at reality and you will see it, in spades. Mae-wan Ho has. Won't you?

Remember Tom Delay? Dionne does. "But something else is true as well: The conservative triumphalism of recent years was itself never justified. Then House Majority Leader Tom Delay was ebullient the day after the 2004 elections: 'The Republican Party is a permanent majority for the future of this country,' Delay declared. 'We're going to be able to lead this country in the direction we've been dreaming of for years.'"

Dionne goes on..."The optimism of DeLay and Karl Rove, the president's recently departed political maestro, who foresaw a long-term realignment to the right, rested on the assumption that between the late 1970s and 2004, conservative ideology had largely triumphed, and conservative political forces had outmaneuvered the left. The liberal-left often accepted that its own contradictions were more profound than those afflicting the right."

We like this work by Dionne. He partially gets it. Libs see Cons as ill. Cons see Libs as ill. Actuality? Both share a mental dis ease known as metastatic dialectic.

How can we make contradictions? Easy! By practicing dialectic. How can we generate oxymora? Easy! By practicing dialectic. How can we make our society insecure? Easy! By practicing dialectic.

Academe teaches dialectic and we practice it. It guarantees societal failure folks, really. Believe it. Doug - 23Sep2007.

If you do not believe that — you had best take another look, really, seriously. This is a Millennium III make or break for USA. I'll stake my life and my hard-earned Quantonics on it. Doug.

Libs want to take our wealth and socially engineer, dialectically, our culture. Cons want to take our wealth and dialectically make war with all those (everyone else) who disagree with them.

Dionne appears to us to find social engineering noble. In our view that is just and ¤nly hylic-psychic intellectual garbage.

Bush appears to us to find unending war with our 'enemies' noble. In our view that is just and ¤nly hylic-psychic intellectual garbage.

Are you disgusted with beau coup irony in those two dialectical facts?

Pirsig said it perhaps best, like this, "Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world."

By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' Bantam 1978 paperback.

If there is anything Doug would wish politicians and academics (especially sociologists) could grasp, it's what Pirsig says above. And then commence understanding what to do about it. We can do some things.

But what can get them to grasp what Pirsig wrote?

"[Shelley, Percy Bysshe] does not believe that the reformation of society can bring this beauty, this divine order, among [humanity] without the regeneration of the hearts of [humanity]."

by W. B. Yeats,
The Philosophy of Shelley's Poetry.

Do you believe dialectically metastasized Libs can pull that off with social engineering? Do you believe dialectically metastasized Cons can pull that off with unending war?

Nor do we. Nor does Doug.

However, partial presence of Libs' diplomacy is far better than Cons' total absence of it. Talking with one's enemies will solve more problems than serially nuking them!

Many are trying and Dionne offers an excellent example.

"In Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What It Needs to Do to Recover It (Princeton University Press, 2005), the Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe summarized the rage of the liberal-left (as distinguished from the anger found at the farther reaches of the left influenced by Noam Chomsky): 'The War in Iraq gave liberals an extreme case of foreign diplomacy whiplash: no sooner had they taken the giant step toward support of military intervention abroad than the incompetence and arrogance of the Bush administration led them to question whether this was the right intervention at the right time.' The neoconservatives 'who prepared the intellectual turf for the invasion of Iraq had no qualms about relying on military force, but their refusal to supplement it with other forms of power, including the kinds of 'soft power' associated with diplomacy, proved fatal to their cause.' It never seemed to dawn on the neoconservatives, Wolfe added, 'that if Iraq was a test case, failure could be just as much an outcome as success, and that if such a failure occurred, it would not ¤nly undermine American power, but the theory of American power that accompanied it." Page B7.

And now we call them "neocan'ts," and "Cons' jobs who are Republican'ts."

Isn't this just em-bare-assing?

How do people who never emerged from 12th grade get to be president of USA? Political dialectical machinery!

Except for brain damaged unfortunate folk, Bu()sh() is the most incompetent human Doug has ever observed. Yet he was elected, two times!

There is more wr¤ng with USA than politics. Look what Libs' dialectical 'social education' has accomplished: Bu()sh()! Doug.

Every time Bu()sh() appears on TV, Doug changes channels or mutes telly until da Bu()sh() has passed. I can smell him, that's how bad it is. A stench of lies and monistic evangelical monism's absolute deceit. It's nose plugs and ear plugs for at least another year. But, if you can imagine, Clintons are even worse! Talk about a desire for OSFA social monism...both of them have that in spades! Nationalized Health Unification. Now, that's Bu()sh()!

What is wrong with politicians and their love of monism? It's like 'scientists' attempting to classically, monistically unify Einstein's Relativity and quantum mechanics. Impossible!

Trouble with Wolfe's title (Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What It Needs to Do to Recover It) is we can never go back. Did you ever go back to your birth place after 20 years? Clearly, we can never go back. We must look forward and ask, "What can I do to make our current situation better?"

Only ihndihvihduals can d¤ that. Classical society cann¤t think. Classical society is a state-ic map (USA: United 'States' of America. Why not call it, "United Concrete Perpetuities of America?" See, we just do n¤t realize what we are saying, what we are thingk-king, what we are writing, and what machines we are forming...Doug.), a stoppable-monistic (therefore deceitful) symbol of ensemble and massively evolving~quantum~animate individuals. Mae-wan Ho is trying to show us that. Classical society, as a symbolic map, cann¤t represent ensembles of individuals. N¤ two people are alike. N¤ two people think alike. Yet socialists call us "the people," "the electorate," "Americans," "civilians," etc., as if we were a monism, a formal and synthetic 'one of many.' We are n¤t manufactured government issue cogs in society's politically geared machine! Government doesn't reproduce individuals in some Soylent Green metallic titanium-hued Bu()sh()opolis! If that were so, we would all reason identically, we would all adhere same religion, we would all be ideal socialized robot zombie hive drones. We would all be cyborg, Borgian-assimilated pieceaux de resistance! Imagine how awful our world would be if we were all ideal dialectical automata: classically-socially-other directed. By direct observation and experience that is what Libs and Cons want! They want to make all of us classically, socially, other-principled — their-principled. N¤, n¤, n¤! By direct observation, each of us is self-directing under an umbrella of (a stux sux stigma of orthodox, canonic, dogmatic, provincial and parochial) classical social mores. Those mores are specific, and as such they wholly lack qua to do anything except 'specify.' Those classically social mores turn individual generality into social specificity: and that dear reader, that is a definition ('definition' is a classical term; quantumly our bold is a phasement...) of social violation of individual rights and freedoms. Classically social mores can never be general. Their state-icity and concrete perpetuity guarantee that. MSFA! Not OSFA!

Time is ripe and right for Doug's following question: "What kind of n¤væl politics might offer what Doug is describing?"

Let's make two lists: one describing what we prefer and one describing what we want to avoid.

Doug will start, and maintain, a list of political requirements for politics which we wish to avoid here:

• politics which views its electorate as lacking qua, and thus...
• politics which juxtaposes society and individual placing society (as having qua) above individuals (as lacking qua),
• politics which views itself in a leadership role above society,
• politics which adheres monist 'principles,'
• politics which divides and builds fences to protect divisions which it wants to control hegemonously,
• politics whose representatives consider themselves sovereign non representatives,
• politics which elects presidents as dictatorial 'the decider' kingships,
• politics which decides what individual rights and freedoms are 'legal,'
• politics which believes that it can create and maintain 'state' and 'state-ic' immutable and perpetual classical 'forms' of government,
• politics which supports an academic system which teaches 'common sense,'
• politics which supports corporate capitalism above individual capitalism,
• politics which spends individual wealth without approval of individuals whose wealth it is spending,
• politics which operates without individual oversight,
• politics which advocates career politicians to perpetually 'serve,' duh, er, 'reign,'
• list, of course, is endless,
• etc.

Doug will start, and maintain, a list of preferred novel political requirements for that novel kind of emergent politics which we wish to encourage here:

• politics which intuits individuals are more highly both evolved and evolving than social state-ic patterns of value,
• politics which enables individuals as agents of better with minimal and n¤ state-ic social anchors detaining and retarding individual progress,
• politics which enables ¤nly l¤cal individuals to ameliorate ¤nly l¤cal problems ¤nly l¤cally and delegates ¤nly adaptive (n¤n state-ic) solutions to groups of both l¤cal and nonl¤cal individuals nonl¤cally,
• etc.

Immediately it becomes apparent that what Doug wants simply is not viable as long as individuals are both violent and disrespect rights of other individuals.

And that last sentence makes Doug's perspective even simpler and more clear: dialectic is violence and dialect allows one to develop disrespect for others whose views per se violate our individual views.

We aren't ready for a change in politics, yet! In Doug's view, we all have to see, however each of us may do that individually, that dialectic has metastasized our Earth, and it cancerously, tumorously, virally trains our brains to think either-or. Either-or [ae]ffects proto lack of respect for others' rights, and that lack of respect leads to violence which may lead to war. Evidence? Divorce, excommunication, prison, hate, anger, bipolar behavior, cyclic manic depression, schizophrenia, "You're either for us or you are against us.", "There is no middle ground.", ...think_q about it. St¤p thingk-king about it. Doug - 27Sep2007.

Again, in Doug's view, even if we do not accomplish that, neo Sapiens is imminent. They will do that, and simply push aside those who refuse. But why refuse? Isn't what Doug describes better than perpetually retaining dialectic? Doug believes an answer to that is obvious! That which evolves is better than any dialectical 'state.' That is fathomable, and that is why Doug claims individuals are intrinsically above classical social state. That is why Doug agrees with Tom Petzinger: Rules is tools for fools' SOM boxes. Quantum gn¤sis supports that meme via its state-ic "monism is deceit." Quantum gn¤sis puts DQ back by claiming principles and symbols must represent evolutionary process. Those who adhere principles and rules as canonic dogma practice gn¤stically-dead notions of perpetual classical social 'state,' AKA ESQ.

Humans are not like a ball of snakes in spring time. We are self-directing individuals. We make personal choices (dialectical 'heresy') while (limited scope of affect) respecting others' rights. We are intrinsically heretical, naturally! Heresy is good. Heresy is natural. State which canonizes heresy as evil is a real evil!

Heretical individuals simply will not long abide dictators. And guess what, middle east feels dictated-to by USA. If you do not grasp, essentially, what that bodes for USA's future, you might as well be a damned machine, a damned hive drone. Bu()sh() is a detrite retard who wants all of us to play in his evangelical fascist 'rule of law' sand box. Buzz off dildo. Buzz off retard. Move to Cuba and take over when InFidel Castration is dead.

Bless them, in spite of their penchant for social engineering and design, Libs simply do not think like neo can'ts. Doug's gonna bite his tongue and vote Democrat since he has to. I will never vote for a Republican't, in this current life, again! I will do anything legal to keep Republikan'ts out of office! (Doug felt that way about Libs until Bu()sh() "tipped the 'rary.") Doug - 23Sep2007.

"Captain, oh! my captain, wherefore art thou..."

So far Doug has ¤nly lightly covered first two of four pages of Dionne's article.

There are more highlights on pages B8 and B9. Let's see what we can eke out of those...

Dionne numbers major Cons' post Iraq and pre Katrina mistakes during Bush disadministration:

1. Bush's push for partial privatization of social security, (but 'privatization' to Bu()sh() means incorporation, not individuation...socially, corporations are little states...)
2. Federal overrule of state level Terri Schiavo passive euthanasia decision, and (per Doug's "avoid list" above...)
3. Valerie Plame CIA op. leak. (This is only partially why Doug views Bu()sh() and his administration as traitors...)

Our view is that USA's Bu()sh() administration leadersh()'s last seven years were the BIG mistake. Prior that Reagan's choice of GHW Bu()sh() as his neo Lib VP.

Now Libs are sounding like solidus quo Cons. They are tending to feel Gingrichesque gloat-indomitable. That's a bad sign.

Does political arrogance arise from monism? Dialectic? McCain't says you're either winning or losing. To McCain't that turns on a dime. His latest dime is Libs' Betrayus. But Republican'ts are already betraying US! They're killing our kids. They're wasting our treasure. They're wasting our time. They're sinking our economy. They're driving our Dollar into a cellar of no return. They've destroyed our global reputation as a leader of eduction and science. They've inflated our whole globe's financial ecosystem. They've lost respect of every decent person on Earth. They're backed by evangelical fundamental fascists. McCain't calls that "winning." What a jerk.

But Libs say they want to be like Cons? They want their own 'backbone.' They want their own political tumescence. Like that ant lying on its back on a barge floating down a river yelling "raise the drawbridge." Cons DIQheads believe they can piss over boxcars. Just more political disinforming Bu()sh(). McCain't is an overblown political balloon. Libs want to be like him? From whence this prideful phenomena borne on others' losses. Sounds very un liberal canonic, doesn't it? From Gingrich, et al., we can expect such, but more highly-evolved liberals? Image? Obamma. Compare him to Libs wannabe Cons HC. HC looks more and more like Gingrich than a highly evolved liberal.

Perhaps politicians have habituated us to swimming in their fecal-minded state-ic cesspools too long. Perhaps we're getting used to it. G¤d help us! Remember Rome... Read Edward Rutherfurd's Sarum! Debbie across street from us recommended this one to Doug. Great read. Great writing. Great historical research combined-commingled with superb author heuristics. Doug - 27Sep2007.

Doug has some other numbered items to add to Dionne's list:

1. Soaring cost of oil,
2. Intentional interest rate management in spite of soaring inflation (much hidden by reduction in size, quantity, and quality of products; offshore sweatshop imports, etc.),
3. Federal market manipulation to prevent market declines,
4. etc.

Those will make life hell for all of us post Bu()sh(). Imagine gold at $5000 per troy ounce. Palladium is over $340 per troy oz, already! Imagine your cash losing value at 10-20% a year and faster. Imagine bread at $10-20 per loaf. A beer out for $10. If you think oil is 'all' that is affected by Bu()sh() radical incompetence, you McCain't seen 'nothin' yet. Sadly, every day that creep stays in office it just gets worse and may disable our abilities to recover. Doug believes 'rary has already been tipped and that we have commenced our decline. Only way to stop that is to act now. Bu()sh() is genuinely detrite! Has been a has been since 2001...

Bu()sh() has really fuxed our world up, hasn't he? And you want another fascist evangelical imperialist retard as president? Hitler was a fascist evangelical imperialist, folks. Hitler's evangelism was white Aryan secular 'chrstianity.' Da demiurge actualized.

Sorta makes one wonder how and who Bu()sh() will socially euthanise. He and anchor-Cheney want to nuke Iran. A novel holocaust 'twill be, m' friends, novel indeed. I'd rather face Al Queda directly than have a US Texas cowboy retard pull a stunt like that...

If Bu()sh() does that, personally, I'm checkin' out. G¤d help us! Doug - 23Sep2007.

Dionne writes all this as "The end of the Bush era." He goes on, "...and by extension the conservative era." But that is what DeLay (a hammer can stop all...and that's what Cons want...an abyss of stayssyss...) claimed would happen to Libs' domination..."the end..." He gets that though, in this, "Paul Starr was right to note in an essay in The American Prospect that 'the exhaustion of conservatism is not tantamount to a liberal survival.'" Nor is it tantamount to Libs' failure. Reality shows us that we can only be uncertain, macroscopically uncertain. Dionne writes that Starr, "framed the challenge as 'whether liberals can make their case not just for specific policies and candidates, but for an alternative public philosophy.'"

That quote, more than any other, evoked Doug's review of this article.

Why? Quantonics offers an alternative public philosophy. Really, genuinely, it does. Not many folk grasp that yet, but a few flakes of snow at our largest mountain's top have started tumbling, tumbling, irrevocably tumbling. Soon m'love, soon...

Dionne now writes of US as individuals: "To do so, they must first rediscover the power or their own ideas and their own tradition. Unlike conservatives, American liberals have been reluctant to embrace their past, partly because of the word 'liberal' has been so successfully demonized." What demonized 'liberal?' Dialectic tradition! There it is again, a real demon — dialectic — vitiating its conceived other, its conceived either-or 'anti-.' A fool calling its dialectical-opposite a fool. Doug believes liberals make a huge mistake of placing society above individuals! Look around. Who is winning? Individuals. There is no turning back. Individuals are moving and fast. They are going to take matters into their own hands unless politicians get this. Military people are turning away from social nobility and toward individual nobility. Young folk are making their own choices which often simply ignore social mandates and mores. Most of us are making our own choices, rather than following celeb's inillustrious views.

Individuals have an uncanny sense about society disadvantaging them. This isn't just a pimple, its globally volcanic and its pressure has been building for over a century. Doug believes it is cusping now. That view offers a modicum of exegesis for apparent chaos we see now. It won't stop until there are major changes, major changes...

But HC and Giuliani are status quo. They are both living in a past which is and has passed. We, as a society can(?) afford a multi-$trillion war, but we cannot afford healthcare. We, before Iraq war, were bankrupt. Then we were going broke trying to finance social security. We couldn't afford SS then. We obviously can't afford it now, and HC wants to pile more social welfare on top of an already failing system. Stupid is as stupid does. You really want to vote for this spendthrift bimbo? She's a political charlatan of 1^st magnitude.

But Giuliani is old school catholic Italian. Do you want a Don as president? It's like making Tony Soprano president of USA. Conservatives destroy their antis to assure their pros. You think China will let Cons destroy it? But Cons will have to do that to have their way!

From Doug's field of vision Dionne now goes to core issues of politics be it Libs, be it Cons. "At the same time, liberals will be required to deal with a set of conflicts and contradictions not unlike the ones that have derailed conservatives."

"Although the most ardent battles between multiculturalism and universalism are found in the academy, they have a bearing on practical politics. That is especially true in Europe, where the rules, traditions, and assumptions of liberal societies are being tested by radical Islamists. Liberals will inevitably face a tension between the imperative to stand up for the rights of minority groups — that most certainly includes the rights of Muslims in Western societies — and the liberal commitment to root the rights of all in a set of universal values and principles. [Dionne garners essence! Doug - 29Sep2007.] The former often looks like particularism when it is in fact based on universalism. Efforts to vindicate the rights of individual members of disadvantaged groups are almost always pushed forward through group self-assertion and group solidarity. In the US, 'Black is Beautiful' and Sisterhood is Powerful' were slogans about groups that arose within struggles for individual civil rights. Yet liberalism necessarily insists on the limits of what one might call 'groupness,' because individuals should be able to exercise rights within their own groups. The intellectual historian Mark Lilla's new book The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West (Random House, 2007) is a powerful reminder of how hard it will be to mediate the intellectual — and thus political — conflicts between the assumption of the liberal West and the assertions of newly powerful political theologies, particularly, though not only within Islam."

"Liberalism's commitment to economic justice and greater equality demands the recognition of common ground that transcends any particular identity."

Those three paragraphs show Doug that Libs both do and do n¤t get it.

Please 'splain how equality isn't Borgian hive-droning.

Please 'splain how identity as individual uniqueness and identity as Aristotelian manufacturing of robotic copies are resolved in a liberal system.

Please 'splain how social good, common good is a n¤n tragically commons for genuine individuals.

Please 'splain how "individual civic" is n¤t an oxymoron.

Please 'splain how 'group rights' can offer individual freedom to all individuals taken individually within any group.

Please 'splain how 'universalism' is n¤t a code word for catholicism.

Please 'splain how Dionne is n¤t describing liberalism as a religion.

Please 'splain how society can, as society, have social intellect.

Please 'splain what 'rights of minority groups' means: do you mean every individual in a minority group has 'individual rights?' If one individual in a minority group has one of his rights denied, can we speak of that group as having 'rights?' (See J. S. Mill.)

Doug's whole point here is that liberalism needs to revisit its own fundamentals in n¤væl lightings. Revisit basics while discarding their dialectic as their major disabler. Consider...

• Individualism: individual free will (n¤t demos will).
• Plurality of individuals all of whom are unique: intrinsically unequal.
• Dynamics of all individuals evolving uniquely: each individual's personally both affected and affective evolution as a self-directed process (n¤t an other-, especially demos will society-directed process).
• A n¤væl view of society as an ensemble of massively omniffering and evolving yet coherent individuals. See Mae-wan Ho. A n¤væl Pirsigean inversion from society over individuals to individuals over society.

Liberal justice, equality, and common ground beg totalitarian communism which most of us grasp is an evil monism of politically correct deceit. Whose justice? Whose equality? Whose common ground? Yours? Mine? Preacher? Priest? Mullah? Congress? Supreme court? President? One social justice cann¤t, will n¤t, shall n¤t fit all individuals without totalitarian other-directed control of individuals. That is an abomination! A liberal abomination!

Dionne's liberalism is communism, totalitarianism, deceitful monism, one universal-catholic size fits allism, folks! Liberal classically social garbage.

Balance of Dionne's article pursues OGC OSFAism, so there is little need to further review it...

28Sep2007 - Doug.

On University of Chicago's Aretê Initiative ...

The Chronicle of Higher Education's 21 Sep 2007 issue, page A33, ran this ad by UChic:

ARETE INITIATIVE

This ad's title is an oxymoron, right?

Recall how Pirsig said that aretê is quality is excellence, etc.?

Too recall that Quality, Aretê cann¤t be defined, since to define it is to put it in classical concrete, to stop it, to turn Planck's h-bar clock off.

UChic wants several of you to submit proposals to challenge their dialectical assumptions about classical aretê, apparently.

Well, challenge their monism! What is a definition? It is a semantic standard. Definitions 'fix' meaning. Doesn't meaning evolve? Rapidly, at that. Is semantic ubiquitous? Does one meaning fit all? Is meaning universal, çatholiç?

Bergson, Wittgenstein, William James, and countless others have said meaning is a function of time and context. Of course, both science and religion religiously deny that. In 2007, though, we know both science and religion are both bogus based upon their notions of objective, quantitative measurables. Even though science cannot define mass, length and time.

UChic wants to 'Define Wisdom?' (They did use present participle...that's a step in a better omnirection.) Ha, ha, he, he, ho, ho, hey, hey...they're comin' to take 'em away ho, ho...

Now just who is insane?

Actually, we should put this under our humor section... but for Doug, this is News!

'Defining Wisdom' is like US gov't. providing a contract to University of Florida to turn a rat's brain neural network which flew an YF-22 flight simulator into digital code, machine code! Ugh!

Thank you for reading,

Doug - 1Oct2007.

Index

See you here again in early November, 2007!

Doug.