Antinomy as the Individual/Groups Political Middle Way to Panarchy 

5/9/16 @11:40 AM

We’ve all experienced how Social Media evidences humanities intrinsic “socialistic nature”. Digital communication that fosters a dynamic sense of group identity and community-acceptance of social norms. 

Contrasted by:

The unique fingerprint-like diversity of content, the plethora of marketplaces, the display of talent, skill, or gift of attention demonstrates the individual or “capitalistic nature” of our species. 

Why can’t we seem to synthesize these two ideologies in a digestible way? How has no one, to my knowledge, pointed out the idea that these two political/economic preferences as being, quite simply, importance placed on the individual-first capitalist, as opposed to the importance of the group-first form of capitalism known as socialism? Is it really capitalism vs. socialism in a celebrity death match to the where only one fiction is valid while the other fiction is condemned as being the root of all evil from the oppositions standpoint… 

Why is it so difficult to see Trump supporters ought to be governed within the huge walls of a Trump Tower eating the best steaks with great American neckerchiefs? Sanders advocates should be free to feel their burn all the way to the tragedy of the commons or, utopia—whichever comes first? 

Oh and Hillary can keep her dupes at her place if they still give a shit once they realize they were the butt of the joke all along. Plus the Greens could be green, Transhumanists could hail Zoltan forever in singularity, and Libs could finally be left alone with their Jonhson… 

Rather than preach to you my pataphysical proclivity for Panarchy and the morally consistent connective reasoning I employ in order to arrive at this political philosophy let’s try something new what-do-ya-say? 

Let’s get Pataphysical-physical, I wanna get… [Record scratch—Sorry.]

The colossal failure of modern humans, embedded in an age of information, is; the overlooked realization that genuine conflicts are between two equally valid, yet diametrically opposed points of view. 

To parkour your way through your own omniphysical path of least resistance reveals a Tao of self-discovery every damn time you ascend to the occasion of invoking the cosmic giggle. It’s a difficult concept to English. But if you can fire on all cylinders, spin multiple metacognitive conceptual plates, and enter into a jazz-like state of awareity, that scientists call a flow-state, then you’ll have successfully hacked your way through the metaphysical landscape of mind. {ataraxia as philosophers call it}

Let’s elucidate this vantage point shall we? 
Have a look at this map of the territory:

 This symbolic representation of what I call the omniverse is a categorical bucket in which we can hold some of the ideologies that might help us recognize some of the features of our body-mind-soul systems of information. 

Pick an object; any tangible object on earth. 

Nice one. Not obvious at all;)


Where can a computer maintain form with scientific and mathematic precision? 

Why in the circle of physics of course! 


Now pick a concept that is intangible or abstract. 


Good let’s put that one in the metaphysics circle. 

Ok last one, pick a concept that is a matter of belief. 

—God. {mic drop}

Boom drop that bad boy in the bucket marked pataphysics. 

Now suppose I wanted to weave a narrative that links all three of the aforementioned multiple choice answers together? To set the stage as to the domain of discourse in which we might orient ourselves in I offer the term omniphysics. 
Let’s have an omniphysical conversation?

This obvious extrapolation of linguistic expression is what I consider to be the overlooked necessity of conversational exchange. How in the cuss are we supposed to know where each others minds/souls or brains are reading from if we don’t know what dimension or “domain of discourse” we are talking about!? How does one organize ones own points of advocacy without asserting superiority over ones neighbors? With this simple tool of dialogue, two or more people can participate in conversations that previously had an unspoken elephant in the room that no one, to my knowledge, has offered to speak about? Now we can discuss the ideas of spirituality, politics science, quantum mechanics, consciousness, conspiracy theories, philosophy, comedy, music, art, poetry, beauty or whatever the cuss you’d like to interject! 

We can now openly discuss eschatology as it pertains to biblical or gnostic interpretation, or the messages from angels as esoteric reception of the Greek Logos, or even the roll government should have in economies and individuals lives! If you believe the world of Harry Potter is possible, or LOTR is not just a fantasy, or think GOT is a viable argument for or against modern feudalism or whatever the case in question might be, we can offer the pre-framed, categorical proposition of a discussion of ones own omniphysics. 

Perhaps now, channeled Metatron transcripts mined in the depths of the psychological subconscious expressions of human minds can be qualified as: pataphysical belief systems which are absolutely permitted for any individual to speak and or persuade others about, as long as it’s categorical existence doesn’t encroach upon the arena of empirical exploration and/or experiments within the small circle of known-physics. Turtles all the way down is pataphysically sensible as long as it doesn’t spill over into public policies that require the unquestioned worship of turtles!

{metaphor is to understanding as technology is to science} 

The first linguistic and etymological distinction I make at this point is the difference between at least two types of existence. Classic dictionary defined existence is the domain of physics and remains unassailable by virtue of the representative power of technology. That is to say, anything that is not technologically viable or an object of empiricism, let’s just make it an outright command: shall not be used to justify subversion of autonomy. You are ethically prohibited from imposing meta or Pataphysically deduced abstractions on others, against their will! Guess what? That’s right the anarchists are right… Any human interaction not voluntarily consented to is not only wrong, it’s the omniphysical assertion of my own iiixtheory {subjective analysis} as the beginning of evil in the hearts and minds of humankind. To use belief as the basis for coercive-action in this era of Internet access to information, is my first proposition for what we call crime. In commandment speak: Thou shall not force belief upon another. In constitution speak: We shall have freedom of and FROM religion. 

So how do we qualify what is and is not a belief while still assigning an intuitive value to its different form of as I spell it: existance? Defined as: occurrence within the biochemistry of an empirical subjectivities consciousness. Existence by virtue of free will. {Thoughts, ideas, logic, reason, philosophy etc.} [metaphysics]

{think of:}

existence | objectivity


existance | subjectivity

[I’ve cussed with doxastic logic until my mind went numb so let’s skip that for now. Leave that to the Neuro-semanticists.]

Perhaps if we regard Angels as the subject of metaphysics or even pataphysics and make a distinction between mind/meta, and soul/pata, we can afford the intellectual and intuitive space we need to find clarity in a type of Group Belief Indicator? {GBI} Maybe we can regard the second coming of Christ as an ethos of a pataphorical game to play with lightworkers who angelically take themselves, and their ego-of-soul-identification-techniques, light enough to poke fun at: who is the most humble? We take note of ones own evaluations and move on in pursuit of self knowledge and in acquisition of group wisdom, while remembering to take it easy man and try not to die! These categories are individuated and open to interpretation until enough data has been collected by way of voluntary survey. A taxonomy of Phaneroscopy or open source ontology is essentially what this amounts to. (IMHO) 

The third category of existence that pertains more towards the Pataphysical dimension is the transcendental and antinomic term I’m trying to coin as: omnistence. This is simply a vacillating wave of the two previous existences and non existence. So technically there are four types of existence according to omniphysics. 

  1.  Omnistence: as is to imagine {Pata}
  2.  Existance: as is to mind {Meta}
  3.  Existence: as is to brain {Physics}
  4.  Non Existence: not is {Void}

Once you’ve run through this exercise a few times you’ll begin to defragment your own understanding of your own understandings; as well as come to sincere realizations about the necessity of acceptance and honesty in matters of public discussion both on and offline. As knowledge and wisdom accumulate and you start to stumble into epiphanies and eureka moments of connective reasoning {Pronoia} you’ll eventually begin to learn how to articulate, or English, your experiences of enlightenment in contrast with others of the same resonance or frequency. Pataphysics will become like second nature to you and your pronoic sense of conceptual blending will reveal a unique type of self created omnism that I call an iiixtheory. {the religion of the honey bee} We’ve all got an iiixtheory hidden behind self erected firewalls of protection in which only you know they passwords as a subjective axiom of enlightened qualia hereby termed an iiixiom. Your own philosophers stone of Existential Antinomy {Æ} which remains as an infinite mystery of uncertainty principles coupled with incompleteness theorems. Add all 7+ billion iiixioms on earth together including for example:

Jesus and his apostles most worthy teachings. Buddah and his followers nirvana expressions. Apple Technology as the combined iiixiom of Jobs/Woz. Einsteins universal iiixiom of E=Mc2. Edgar Cayce and perhaps now David Wilcock now as living his own iiixiom. Sirius as the iiixiom of Dr. Stephen Greer. Nicola Teslas entire existence! Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s series of episodes titled Cosmos. Waking Up a personal narrative through the iiixiom of Sam Harris. Anything that qualifies as a Hitchslap. David Icke and his Reptilian Agenda iiixiom. George Carlin or Bill Hicks—nuff said. Whatever Oprah is on about these days as her iiixiom. Hunter S. Thompson’s life and death as one hellofa ride through a Gonzo iiixiom. The Art collection of visually symbolically representations of iiixiomatic states of being by Alex and Alyson Grey. Max Bemis “…Is a Real Boy” masterpiece of poetic catharsis of iiixiomized wonder and woe! Scientology or Dianetics as a collection of Hubbards iiixioms. The Angel Moronis messages to Joseph Smith as his iiixiom. Joe Rogan on Mushrooms, DMT, ibogane or Ayahuasca and his recollection of it all as his iiixiom. Immortal Technique and any album he drops as his ongoing iiixiom. The Singularity as Kurtzweils iiixiom. Jason Silva as he rhapsodically narrates through his iiixioms. Calculus as one of Issac Newtons many iiixioms. Wolfram Alpha as the iiixiom of the Internet. The constitution as the GBI iiixiom of the Founding Fathers. Whoever invented money/economics, iiixiom. Biocentrism the iiixiom of Robert Lanza. Black Whole HoloFractalGraphic iiixiom of Nassim Haramein. OPPT. Shout out to my FB friend Gary And his iiixiomatic articles written for Fractal Enlightenment! Time Wave Zero as the iiixiom of Terrence McKenna; “and so on and so forth”. 

Add em all together to conceptually unlock humanities ever changing experiential data set of an approximation of omniscience. {species God mode} This is how we elevate, honor and respect the subjectivity of others dead or alive, fiction or non. With an experiment in taxonomy on that scale we can finally, once and for all, determine with epistemic integrity the universal estimates or range of respectable anthropocentric ideologies and their periodic table of abstractions as they pertain to each ones epistemic value or utility. This is obviously a meta analysis on top of the propositions previous mentioned, but I think it illustrates the symbolic gesture of omniphysics and the job description of a true reality technician. 

The best part about this enterprise in quantifying perspectives is: iiixioms are subjective analyses of a network of reasons as to why one uses the word “is” the way they do. It also approaches answering the question Alan Watts asked when he wondered what you mean when you say the word “I”? Best of all iiixioms are take it or leave it, use it or lose it propositions. Subjectively they are profound truths backed by incontrovertible evidence based trust and logic and REASON! But objectively unless you’re Alan Turing, you lack the tech genius to represent your ideas in anything other than human mouth noises. So chill out with your use of the word “reality” if you don’t throw up the pop culture signal of “air quotes”.

Without ruining the profound belly laugh you’ve got in store for yourself as you weave your own decoded ontological explanations about reality, suffice to imagine the ill conceived and impoverished dimensions of atrophied pataphysiques in the sentient chambers of misplaced category imposition as well as the impropriety of belief that has caused most if not all of the conflicts of ideology on this planet!? 

The fuck were we thinking when we allowed anyone but your own god damn self as the only source of authority in the self determined destiny of your own delightful choosing, so long as autonomy is respected and physics is the common ground..? One thing remains axiomatic at the very least, if you’ve made your way out of the noise and indoctrination of cultures, religions, governments, and economic systems and you find yourself on a previously existing path of another’s own origination, you can be sure you’ve not even scraped the surface of your own iiixiom. 

Next time you’re in the main chamber remember to bring the big kid voice and come correct if you want to play the game of ethical moral philosophy wherein the only acceptable answer is Panarchy

“Let every {hu}man make known what kind of government would command his{/her} respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” 

—Henry David Thoreau

How’s that for a sermon?




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