Antinomic-Existentialism {Æ} and the Faculty of Imagination:

A Case for Agnostic-Imaginism.

6/11/15 @11:41PM   

I wonder what you mean when you say the word: I? —Alan Watts

If we want to move forward as a species we are going to have to increase some of our natural born talents of perception. One of these innate skills at our beck and call is the power of imagination. There have been numerous people throughout the ages; great thinkers, inventors and scientists alike who have all singled this psychological faculty out as being far more deserving of credit than some would like to imagine. In order to really use this skill effectively though, we need to give it the proper tools to utilize as it reports back to us, with exciting new visions, and delightfully fresh perspectives or narratives.  

“Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.” —Georg W. F. Hegel

This is where new words or neologisms come into play. Keep in mind: words are merely shadows of the abstract objects of our awareness of consciousness and sentience. {perceptix}

To those willing to ascend to a certain wavelength of awareness, a level of minds eye visibility is available to the perceptic chambers of the mind, facilitating a harmonious-dissonance or a chord of magnetic vibrational attractors, attuned to the center of ones being commonly known as purpose. The ponder-some word antinomy is pointing at this fascinating and ataraxic state of awareness that is available to those precious few imaginists who dare to try. (imaginal cells by Bruce Lipton:) This notion of antinomy is a modality of everyday life, it’s just not well known enough for people to recognize when they are abiding by their own sense of it. Terrence McKenna would describe this cognitive skill, as “the felt presence of direct experience.” I feel this is a significant statement. You see antinomious perception is what strikes a balance between any two equally valid, logically correct, perhaps even diametrically opposed propositions, ideas, beliefs, skepticisms, concepts or any other abstraction of thought imaginable. If quantum mechanics and relativity were to be united, the effect of that union would be: antinomious. Think of a mutually exclusive dance with dichotomy. The unfixed and ever changing choreography of which could be considered the vacillating positions of antinomy. 

Imagine then, the space between a yin yang symbol; picture the grey area betwixt  black and white; find the lines of division across water in its solid, liquid and gaseous states; perhaps even the love child as a result of a lion and tigers night of wild fornication would culminate into the wicked-awesome antinomic offspring called a liger. What ever the duality in question may be at any given moment in time, the hybridization; the synthesis, is subject to a type of antinomic subjective-analysis. To me, this mental skill of consciousness is the entelechy which decides the existential position of antinomic preference, and can thus be universally acknowledged as the actualized self. 
[Without inferring spirituality; the self, construes as the soul, from this vantage point. Potentially, the soul is nothing more than a veridical paradox of existance itself?] 

The word antinomy though, is instrumental in Neuro-semantically holding down some of these adumbrated concepts of metacognition. Found within some of these conceptual occurrences, moral instruction is occasioned to those entities that choose to employ a balanced intellect with the intuited faculty of sentience itself. By way of meditation and deep feeling|thought, antinomy begins to reveal itself in your imagination as a vessel of enlightenment. A strong Neuro-semantic, linguistic framework of an individual’s own choosing, is an ideal platform with which to postulate deeper into this subjectively-objective, phantasmagorical sea of antinomy.
Herein I’ve heuristically discovered a dilemma in certain archetypical mental dispositions that preclude one from comprehending the basic reality of what really IS, as opposed to how it is thought, or believed it might be. No one veridically KNOWS anything in a fully comprehensive theory or philosophy. The words themselves in that last sentence alone are incapable of being universally defined above reproach. Even if a theory of everything could be articulated, that would not preclude the inverse theory of nothing, nor the gradients found therein, from being considered. Antinomy would be the middle ground parsed archetypically, by the relevant modal perspectives that can be articulated on the subject of any ontology. 

We can see that even in humanities most enlightened or omniscient states of being, no magically indisputable phrase, that transcends intellectual biases, has descended upon our human languages with which to unite the whole of our species out of the bickering of ego subjectivity. Indeed, if verbal facility were proof enough that one knows wtf they are speaking about then words alone would be enough to diplomatically solve any problem of communication. 

The term: “agree to disagree” would never be needed because logic and reason alone could instruct our minds into apodictic states of awareness, and belief itself would be useful only in matters of admitted fantasy or entertainment. 


[image source:]

The variance available in an individual’s stochastic sampling rate of self aware habits of perception is unique to every human ever in existence. The things an identity attends to and ignores is more than presumably, an expression, of a facet, of ones whole being. Wherein one can deduce where one matrix of belief overlaps onto ones own matrix of belief is where the very essence of freedom of or from religion can be found. To construe any vicissitude of life as it is thought, felt, AND believed, is at least how it can be imagined it really is. 

And that’s where the ground level of existence can be predicated upon. The imagination encompasses all that we can conceive of, across the spectrum of experience available to human perception. If all matter, energy, space and time can be regarded as bits of data informing the motion of particle behavior then, everything in existence is in need of ones own operational system synthesis, of direct, informational, antinomic-input; in order to obtain ones own hyper-dimensional glimpse of the transcendental object juxtaposed with the end of time; —the eschaton. Simply put: information converts to existence by virtue of personal observation. Personal observation informs the felt experience of knowledge which over time, distills into wisdom. Without wisdom as a result of philosophic inquiry, knowledge is blind. 
To interpret the foundation of all existential observations as a construct of cosmic imagination, is to attempt a simile. The metaphorical symbolism of the process of ontological explanation, is what I’m pursuing. If by utilizing the same methodology that underscores all of philosophy on the act of philosophy itself I can envelop the arena in which we find ourselves, then that just gives any propositional attitude towards ideas about reality a fun game to play. Historically this game of cognitive behavior was called: pataphysics. I propose the term imaginism as a panacea to the boredom marked against philosophy, experienced by disaffected minds. Without imagination, philosophy is dead. 

The idea of imaginism is simply offering a label about the way people operate—as is—yet it allows a light to shine on some of the blind spots of our non-meta/pata perception. Imaginism merely prompts your awareness of your explanations and points of advocacy to the realization that communication without metaphor is impossible, and metaphor without imagination is vacant, or even worse; pointless. If we can give a little grace to our fellow humans of goodwill, grant a modicum of empathy, then perhaps our imaginations can begin to instruct us in ways that honor our individuality and freedom of expression, but at the same time, somehow get us to admit the humility of agnosticism into our belief systems without having to abandon them?
Do you think anyone could truly, empirically—undoubtedly—qualify any subjective occurrences of belief with any logically consistent words that came to mind in the moment? It’s a tall order to ask of a best friend or lover let alone a complete stranger!? Trying to get people to admit that belief is a function of the imagination is even harder to do! On that note where the hell do thoughts originate from? 

I mean it’s fairly apparent that a molecule doesn’t roll down some quantum hill setting off a cascade of subatomic micro events that eventually build enough momentum to nudge a sleeping neuron into cognition enough to rub two brain cells together in order to facilitate the deterministic mechanical continuum of cognogenisis! That’s just the made up word for the beginning of a thought… 

You see what I mean though.., 

This is where communication of knowledge and hence the notion of the concept of enlightenment, eludes base line conscious apprehension. Therefore it is necessary to enter a flow state of mind that silences the inner critic of our mental modeling techniques. 

Taken further, this is why experience is such a vital component of the human entelechy. If teaching, speaking, reading, morally instructing or otherwise demonstrating experiential concepts were enough to promote positive change in human behavior then religion, government and economics combined would have turned the tide of human nature for the better after any great insight was offered by decent people of the past. If Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, the pantheon of Greek philosophers, Eastern Cultures, Gandhi, Einstein, MLK, JFK, John Lennon, or any Mother Teresa philanthropist types couldn’t do much to get people to self actualize to their fullest potential then what makes any of us think we can do better? Experience is the powerful motivator that instructs the individual from the inside out. If your guru is putting him or herself on a pedestal then they are looking for followers rather than developing competent leaders. The freedom of antinomy in an awakened mind credits our species out of the morally bankrupt ethos of the past. Ever since Plato stated that “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” we’ve seen failed policy after failed policy. By antinomically uniting experience with experiment, there may be a way out of the abyss of entrenched epigenetic human behavior—but that’s a subject for another time…
To reiterate; since there is no infallible scientific way to quantify subjectivity itself, people would be wise to lend each other grace and empathy for the communicable quandary of the paradoxical nature of personal existential value systems. This irreducibly complex explanation of why the word antinomy is necessary in certain philosophical, political, moral, scientific, religious or ontological discussions, is reasoned by the axiom of agnosticism, a degree in which is demonstrated empirically by notions like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The foundation of all matter is predicated on a type of well rehearsed chaos that eludes pattern and perception. Being certain in ones uncertainty is not a contradiction; it is a signal of awareness! It’s a synthesis of the two polar opposites of knowledge and ignorance. It is antinomic. 
On all matters of uncertainty, wherein no “authority” can be argued to exist, simply because the agent posturing said argument is indeed engaged in any number of conjectural beliefs and assumptions about reality, (deciphered by The Phaneron😉 to even speak on such topics, is to demonstrate ones own ignorance of self and others. Furthermore it is to reinforce the uncertainty presently accounted for. 
Antinomy is like the carbon atom of the philosophical periodic table; it bonds with all life based compositions of matter to combine in ways which exemplify novelty. This novelty of antinomy between personally preferred human expression and all other points of data in existence, is what I have come to discern as the human soul. To regard this word as metaphysically suggestive is to semiotically ignore the words just offered. The resonant frequency in which we choose to embed our entelechy is a modality of free will; the qualia of which evidences self existence. The soul therefore is simply the entelechy of continuity in non material, space-like existance that utilizes some type of morphic resonance that imagines an identity of itself into existence from previously established models of novelty. But that’s just my own Neuro-semantic proclivity on the matter as it’s the most succinct way of expressing my own ontological and antinomic preference. Everyone is free to imagine as they please right? Imagine it into existance is what gods and the godless have in common—a derivation through the third eye of pure imagination. 
Belief is thereby rendered as a scapegoat of philosophical consistency. The pocket in which we deposit all that is unknowable or unprovable or worst of all unfalsifiable! Belief ought never be the foundation of any unjust action or sanction against the autonomy of others. The utility of faith; the act of belief; must never leave the domain of mental activity, for to do so is to align with the people that make deities out of egos and egos out of stupidity. Renounce the ignorant bloodletting fools and fanatics of dogmatism and certainty, only to embrace the agnostic truth of the wondrous unknown…
(I hope you like word salads?)
Perhaps then, God is nothing more than a metaphor of the imagination itself; the resistance towards existence that confounds its omniscience with a vacillating dance through the antinomic paradox of a phantasmagoric enigma that just refuses to exist; thereby giving of its ever-changing-chaos-data-self in order for us all to exist?

Searching for consciousness in the brain is like looking for the internet inside a computer
—a fools errand. In order for objectivity to be objectively established, consciousness would necessarily require the unreality of non existence.

Paradox aside…

Put simply and in summary; we are everything and nothing antinomically imagining itself as something. To assert that reality is unknowable and only a matter of personal belief preference is to be as plausible and honest about existence as cognitively possible. To say anymore on the subject is to court hubris. 

In the infinite multiplicity of ways in which the universe can be construed, none of them ever extend out of the domain of earth centered reasoning, perspectives and narratives. Therefore what humanity must come to terms with is the total freedom that exists in ways one may choose to orient their life, while abiding by their own conscience and understandings in any form of voluntary self governance imaginable. It is the most imaginative and beautiful theories then, that will begin to catch the attention of the sincerest of seekers of truth. “Truth” and hence “reality” ought never be spoken of as anything more than an opinion derived from ones own phaneron which is trying to put words and images to the ineffable qualities of existence. 

In other words; antinomy is the word you’ve been looking for to describe that middle ground you like to take when liberals and conservatives; atheists and theists; capitalists and communists just can’t seem to stfu. 

This is why me and my man Alan Watts both wonder what we mean when we say the word “I”? 

If all words can be construed as conceptions or deceptions of the truth, what then is the meaning of meaning?

Find your Antinomy. Find your meaning.


Sincerely iiixtheory 

(Pronounced: iks theory)


2 Comments Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s