Observer-Abstraction Pragmatism

“The power of moral prejudices has penetrated deeply into the most intellectual world, the world apparently most indifferent and unprejudiced, and has obviously operated in an injurious, obstructive, blinding, and distorting manner. A proper physio-psychology has to contend with unconscious antagonism in the heart of the investigator…” – Nietzsche, BGE

Humanity, in its comprehensive and strategic cruelty, has historically relied upon the trickery of the miraculated First-Observer to create theocratic despotism wherever it finds conditions are too harsh for population density to derive surplus labor value. There is another approach to the issue of cosmic Observers that reveals just how imperative it is that we develop some disposable metaphysical model as a working construct. This moral failing lies in the belief that the cosmos is intrinsically human and requires a democracy of observers for its existence. This is a sad sense of entitlement felt by those most willing to quit. However, even this axiomatization of equal participation by every conscious intelligence becomes preferable to the borderline psychoticism of polarizing re-territorialization. Namely, the borderline disorders murdered into place by Clerics of the respective Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions. This is no race or class, but an invasive ideology that infects the most simplistic and superstitious forms of life; we will be fools to gamble that it may likewise infect new machines of our own creation.

In contrast with this diurnal terror, the convenience of the Vedic model lies in the capacity to allow a considerable portion of the population of its believers to independently miraculate their individual optimism biases as coping with death. This creates a collectivist universe that needs observers. Any horrible circumstance then provides a slightly mystical purpose to life-in-itself. Or this is the superior terror of moral thought, fully synthesized by the stoic monotheist, Paul of Tarsus, which failed: fear not one death but many, fear not this life, but samsara in some fresh hell of which only the jealous Jehovah-Allah may create. Lost in translation, or fulfilled by it? Such was the downfall of Rome.

Unlike other miraculated abstractions, at least the Vedanta, in the wisdom of old age, acquired well before its textual recording, is an axiomatization that can, with more consistency than most, encourage an equality that holds some representational logic. “Respect any living being, as this being might be you,” such is the best we can do in egalitarian belief.

Outside the realm of popular pseudo-psychology, we should take the Abstract Observer variable as an opportunity to exploit. Pragmatically, it is sufficient to argue that we must find Observers continuously as a textual critic, precisely because it is a superior survival instinct recording in their spare time such evidence. If there were a 50/50 split of conscious intelligence that assumed any pattern, if any unexpected event must have an agent with an intent that may cause either harm or be useful, we would expect the Agency-assumptive intelligences to gain an advantage in finding mates, killing prey, defending territories, and recognizing enemies when attacking. In other words, those who see opportunities for sex, food, and victory, even where shadows and the wind are the source, gain an increase in attempts and therefore winnings, even though the probability of success remains equal.

Fractal Ontology is the intellectual equivalent of this hunt. It provides us an opportunity, on the one hand, to take any pattern to its absolute logical limits and experiment with its applications, knowing we will later do the same with its opposite. Meanwhile, Metaphysical Agnosticism allows us to suspend the disbelief of Agency as needed for our maneuvers economics and the orientation of the Observer. We must treat the traits that ensured our survival in the forest with skepticism in the lab and optimism in the calculi. Within any scenario that searches for, but cannot find, a First-Observer, this only occurs through a forgetful self-trickery that once ensured the fitness of our species; and indeed, it could again.

The logocentric triangulation built by arborescence, in every case, is subject-object-audience. When a philosopher, physicist, or mathematician shares an idea via written language, it is an act of socioeconomic truth-value exchange. Expression through symbolic representation allows subjective understanding to circulate on the broader market of ideas. The Observer’s subjective universe, which analysis collapses and concretizes in its construction, cannot integrate without modification. The observer must reify an idea in secured symbols, also called representation. The idea is “secured” in the sense of a mortgage-backed security; likely to cause a similar collapse. It is meaningful only through convention and history, taken to mean something real, independent of the actual reality it represents. Convention therein overrules significance when anyone hopes to integrate with the macroeconomy of ideological production systems. The danger of a fetishism of the knowledge-laborer as a commodity within the system may break us. When we strip the significance of truth-value from its sociopolitical product and drop the roles of the author and the audience, we are losing vital Information Dominance.

We must also maintain constant vigilance in the presence of any interpretation of physics or metaphysics in which any element of the concretized evidence of the subjective experience obscures the role of the observer-philosopher, observer-physicist, or observer-mathematician; that is, hiding the writer(s) shaping the conclusions.

Although the art of the camera, predicated upon focus and constraint, finds its artistic bloom within strict rules, the purposeful and hidden role of the artist emerges just as Intended. Constrained expression it is just that – art, symbol, and focused emotion. When we see a similar trend in logocentric encapsulation of truth-value, we must recognize and elucidate the absolutism with which a word, as symbol universalizing several observations, forces a concretization of the Observer’s collapsed triangulation. Too conveniently does the text hide all tangential propensities, probabilities, predicates, and possibilities of The Moment. How privileged indeed is any man who is skilled in manipulating words.

Continuous Irreducibility

Precession of a stable axis, this wobble of sociopolitical construction and distribution, reveals the distinction between “permanence” as dogmatic eternals, versus what accretive, decentralized adaptation attains irreducible differentiation through continuous shaping of an equilibrium identity. Continuous irreducibility appears stable to the pattern-designing mind, despite mutagenesis, oscillation, eccentricity, and errors. Precession allows an illusion of consistent identity, patterns so intricately interconnected to be irreducible as a system. Morality is not the realm of tolerated disagreement, it is the transformative shift, reparations of the revolutionary spin.

Regardless of the absurd acrobatics pursued by the tabula rasa empiricists or phenomenological existentialist Sartre, none of them denied that every human possesses in varying degrees of intensity and “stylistic arrangement” of psychosomatic drives. We use psychosomatic intentionally; it is an experience of physical discomfort that distorts mental signification. Like a cattle prod, the body reminds us that the mind is bodily in its operations, restricting our considerations, chasing us into the rancher’s chutes: fight, free, fuck, and food for oneself. The number of drives remain debated in psychology, business, and philosophy, primarily because too few drives begins offending the delicate masses, while too many drives lacks theoretical elegance. Every attempt to “think outside” empirical reality, when faced with human instincts and drives, finds itself in a circus of values, acrobatics of explanation. Just look, for example, of Sartre’s explanation of sex drive as an obsession with exploring holes (EHE).

Sufficient explanation in practice comes more easily to methodological naturalism: sexual dimorphism cannot self- perpetuate its gains in complexity without a sex drive, animals cannot self-perpetuate the body-system without a food and thirst drive, intelligent consciousness self-perpetuate its pattern recognition and design of tools and systems without a comprehension drive. Regardless of the path by which all these drives attained continuous irreducibility, all human history attests to what the “hullabaloo” is about: freedom, movement, sex, food, water, territory, security, and denial of death.

Kant attempted a logically necessary moral system because he hoped to supersede every variation of the precession of values modernity discovered. This was a reaction to the unravelling of simplicity underway. Colonialism and expansion of global trade gave rise to comparative culturalism. One consistency reveals itself. Rising population density requires to complex systems of domestication. That is, more bodies amassing their drives requires intricate methods of control over food, water, sex, resources, and territory. As Deleuze & Guattari describe the “Ideal State” springs into every text fully-established. Language that survives in written form never appears without massive efforts of domestication huddled around a source of abundance and power.

Relativism, a tolerance of immigrants, allowance of extreme ideals, many gods, several specializations; the average freedom decreases as more free wills amass together. The increasing complexity in their system of morals, aimed at minimization of “complaints” in its many forms. Monarchy and aristocracy were the major forms in which enough privilege amassed to accrue the power that stabilizes the lesser average freedom of the masses. For most of human history, this was gradation of rank relied on domination and enslavements, in which domestication was a single process applied by the few to the many. Restated – moral systems dictate the limits of domination in the realms of enslavement and domestication. When many internal limits compete, gradations of rank arise.

Even the axiom, “All men are created equal,” has produced multi-layered systems of inequalities, desperately to achieve sameness of treatment across all human adults, of sound mind, after age of consent, before age again removes this power. Animals, children, and other property have more rules of civilized conduct than ever, but it is premature to conclude that the intention of equality produce equality in consequence. The saying “freedom isn’t free” gains more cohesive meaning, as freedom not only requires great cost, in resources, time, and deaths, but becomes a system of restriction and incarceration.

This is not to justify any form of inequality that arises, but to add to our backlog that a system of inequalities is produced by every moral system, so our ethics must grapple which inequalities are engineered as its consequence. Thus far, we have only concluded that ethics must sustain the minimum viable resilience of systems that question morality.

Sublime Simplicity

O sancta simplicitiatas! In what strange simplification and falsification man lives! One can never cease wondering when once one has got eyes for beholding this marvel! How we have made everything around us clear and free and easy and simple! how we have been able to give our senses a passport to everything superficial, our thoughts a godlike desire for wanton pranks and wrong inferences!–how from the beginning, we have contrived to retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety–in order to enjoy life! And only on this solidified, granitelike foundation of ignorance could knowledge rear itself hitherto, the will to knowledge on the foundation of a far more powerful will, the will to ignorance, to the uncertain, to the untrue! Not as its opposite, but–as its refinement! – Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Methodical First-Observer Atheism

                “In that the NEW psychologist is about to put an end to the superstitions which have hitherto flourished with almost tropical luxuriance around the idea of the soul, he is really, as it were, thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrust–it is possible that the older psychologists had a merrier and more comfortable time of it; eventually, however, he finds that precisely thereby he is also condemned to INVENT–and, who knows? perhaps to DISCOVER the new.” – Nietzsche, BGE

There has never been and will never be a logically necessary first-observer. Within the enquiries of intelligent consciousness, Schopenhauer and Russell easily expose the fallacies of Bishop Berkeley’s watchful deity – the overuse of one sign for many significations. The “mind” and its “idea” – representing too many problems with too little nuance. As an English-speaking population, appropriating, sampling, and remixing any word of any era we so choose, we see readily the corruption of discoveries inherent in translating all thought to Latin. The Germans of the modern era found this readily after Kant. A dead language is a closed system. While closed systems provide control for a centralizing power, open systems with semi-permeable boundaries and decentralized redundancies adapt and evolve.

                That is not to say that a theoretical first-observer lacks usefulness, likewise with a universal transcendent observing itself, or manifold object-oriented observations, aggregated in generalized observation. Our issue is methodical. Invasive Ideology builds up closed systems that refuse any hint of disposability in their first-observer constructs. There are those in the Jesuit or Vedic traditions, and more recently in the quantum sciences, that relish the Mystery itself. Mystery as an absurd realm where each of these first-observers are simultaneously the same argument.

Invasive Ideology is not content with relevance. Closed systems fight all disposability, despite all the after-market additions that accrete upon their dogma over time. Such symbols have been the source of immense harm, bigotry, and despotism. The fallacy of the anthropic argument, that an intelligent observer implies that some metaphysical entity must likewise exist, something intelligent capable of producing intelligent observers, lies precisely in the first half of the argument – if an intelligent observer is looking for an observer, they are the observer. The anthropic fallacy attempts to obscure the presence of the narrator, a tradition as old as story-telling itself.

When we watch these anthropic narrator-observers seek evidence through existential instantiation, particularized examples for the confirmation bias of their echo chamber, we find the anthropic fallacy axiomatizes the particles under one Prime Axiom. The denial of death gives rise to many closed systems of bigotry. They bring all specific examples of truth-value exchanged for strategic purposes in our species, then regard each one as an idea that lies some standard deviation from their Hegemonic Truth. Meanwhile, the actual observer, creating the narrative, pretends they were not at the scene of the crime – a sad cover-up. They deny their moral agency for all the truncating and noise canceling required, their responsibility for selecting variables and samples, their agency in establishing the level of observation and the orientation of the coordinate system.

While science willingly bears responsibility for their own distortions, doing so with great transparency, maintaining transaction histories, methodical doubt of selection parameters, external audits with peer review, in context of a liberated and intense competition of ideas, the opposite of this lies in prophecy. To many philosophers have been nothing more than hyper-vigilant prophets. In their pedantry and precision, they hide that they have merely written a long poem. The theologian writes a poem about their feelings toward human life and society, while the maxims, edicts, and constructs are axiomatized. “We hold these truths self-evident.” No matter how unreal, self-contradictory, or unhealthy those axioms become in the absence of observers that will bear full moral responsibility for the consequences of their contributions to the ideological system.

Moreover, once the system is no longer in the traceable control of moral agents but becomes independently continuous, the effects become taught as the first-causes of the closed system. Therein lies our need for suspicion, because a continuous closed system of values that requires no believers is implicitly amoral. Every effort to keep it afloat reveals an exploitation, domination, and enslavement for political economy. Thus, while nowhere in the Bible do we find judgment against suicide, the horrors of the feudal system made it necessary to keep exploited laborer alive, even against their will. Preach the sin of suicide, else the workers unable to flee political economy will flee through death instead!

The abstraction of a metaphysical construct is not merely generalization of empirical reality, it is backpropogation that elevates its place in its semiotic closed loop. As a wave function of truth-value, metaphysical effects become miraculated into a causal hegemonic category: truth-in-itself, god-in-itself, libido-in-itself, spirit-in-itself, and capital-in-itself. Each have been miraculated into a position of first-observer for their own moral and political purposes. When an effect becomes swapped for its cause, when a systemic result becomes treated as the uncaused cause, the actual observer conceals all agency. “In the beginning…” The author, meanwhile hides, with or without leaving a record of authorship! Herein lies an important discovery: transformation is the art of convincing everyone that something new is something old. The Magician-King arises with this revolutionary goal, to prepare for the future by convincing the masses of something eternal that must come to fruition.

Plato hides behind the prophecy of Socrates to tell us that we are witnessing mere shadows of truth-in-itself. Some hidden author hides behind the three major Christ narratives, wherein this philosophical messiah, strangely endowed with Buddhist stories and Stoic egalitarianism, claims his purpose is to testify Truth. The “Nature” of stoicism synthesized with the jealous god of monotheism. The hidden author axiomatizes the metaphysical construct, then miraculated it into the narrative so that Pilate can ask “What is Truth?”

One man as an honest testimony: a claim that, if treated as a sociopolitical insurgent caught between the ideological systems of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, we might agree. Joshua of Nazareth (Jesus) as social critic, supporting the rhizomes and nomads rather than the arborescence creating systemic dysfunction. Yet this did not serve the political economy of the Popes after Roman centralization crumbled. When the market forces of freely-exchanged ideas fail to establish hegemony, the ideological production systems must go to war!

This is the ultimate political victory of the Zoroastrian ideological production process, continuously developed in the factories of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic military-industrial complex of faith: only one god, only one truth, one-in-the-same; one light, one authority, one messiah-prophet. Everything else is darkness, evil, sin. Either faithful and true, or worthy not merely of eradication, but eternal torture. Imagine any contemporary individual presenting these symptoms – bipolarity of morals, lost in the mania of creation followed by the depression-rage of annihilation, borderline in the totalitarian separation of perfect-me, unworthy-them, narcissistic in the determinism of value, and sociopathic in the application of fascist conformity. Imagine this person purchasing the largest global consumer goods corporation, the largest global mercenary and security corporation and amassing an overwhelming inventory of nuclear armaments.

More rational, albeit violent if necessary, sociopolitical constructs deal swiftly with such psychosis. The Zoroastrian traditions lie in a propensity of death-denial that arises exclusively from our diurnal instincts. They allow “THE” god-in-itself to be miraculated as first-cause and we allow its ideological systems to axiomatize every depravity of bigotry and injustice with impunity. How foolish to allow tolerance of intolerance!

Freud, at least, although gaining more mass popularity than the equally inventive constructs of Nietzsche, signs his name to theories, argues with peers and students – the First Observer in the case of psychodynamic theory, as a counter-movement to the dysfunctions of religious indoctrination, recorded and known in an autograph. Whatever fiction he created, however unreal it was, he used these anti-historical myths to achieve a purpose – helping his patients. He did not, however, remove his Agency or Intent from his narrative, ensuring (at least) that the mythology could not be miraculated into prophecy – some fiction with god-in-itself as the origin.

More importantly, we can thank Freud for modeling a new behavior for scientists and philosophers. His mythologies prove the utility, when necessary, of building a metaphysical construct that is plausible enough to keep the inquiry moving forward, but unreal enough to receive significant criticism. This forces the ideological system to remain open and adapt as additional information becomes available. Even though the libido gets abstracted beyond the existential instantiation of any individual human’s complex thoughts, emotions, and behaviors regarding their own sexuality and gender, as well as the sexuality and gender of others; even though psychodynamic theory places the handy metaphysical construct in a First Observer role. It is a cosmos of sex, of desire, and a tradition worth continuing in its various fantasies precisely because sexuality is a ubiquitously significant construct. The difference lies in maintaining strict atheism toward the miraculated libido-in-itself. Sex-in-itself is not the First Observer of the cosmos causing all other supply and demand. If we hold it (or some variation) constant in our metaphysical constructs, some law of attraction we echo as well, we know this is a mental construct instead.

The facticity of human existence includes the capitalistic exchange of genetic capital, an obsession about sexual reproduction and its “standard deviations” easily explained by evolutionary emergence. Mutation, selection, and endless becoming. Those with consciousness see sexuality everywhere. We may forgive this penchant as a strategy orders of magnitude more probable to succeed in reproduction. Our generations of descent did not remove us so far from our earliest mammalian ancestors that we should ignore the existence of rodent species for which the males completely lose all personal survival instinct in favor of a relentless spread of their genetic material, at the expense of sleep, food, and safety; sex, sex, sex. The same phallic obsession drove industrial revolutions and neoliberal economic policies: supply, supply, supply!

“Where there is nothing more to see or to grasp, there is also nothing more for men to do”–that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may notwithstanding be the right imperative for a hardy, laborious race of machinists and bridge- builders of the future, who have nothing but ROUGH work to perform. – Nietzsche, BGE

Marx enters the arena to analyze this self-similar inherent flaw of Classical Capitalism, the propensity of the system to miraculate capital-in-itself; money as the First Observer preceding society, economic, relationships, family. Marx elucidates a psychotic causal vector of capital-in-itself as causa prima of labor, causing supply, causing demand. We will return to this problem extensively, because we burn the brand of capitalism into every theoretical construct. We see it everywhere once we tell ourselves to look for it; all these floating values of valuation and signification are so relational and exchange-driven. We can spread this as our market-based view of sex, the trickle-down economics of anti-entropy, some exchange value of god-in-itself.

To the extent this phallic-capitalistic mindset could be entirely cultural, a long-shrouded instinct, or even a category of mind, we must take care to explore each point and its counter-point. If capitalism is a projection of mind, we should pursue and test additional theoretical possibilities along its fractal ontology, but we must also, with extreme diligence, pursue every anti-construct to the best of our ability or find competitors who will. If capitalism is an underlying constant of physicality, we must likewise pursue its implications in areas that claim this as a moral justification, holding it implicitly with domineering potential bias.

The Complex Agnosticism Function

“What happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.”

– Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

The observer recognizes and prioritizes in accordance with expansion of its Information Dominance. In observing this, we are prudent to maintain healthy skepticism toward any popular theory that starts by anchoring the Observer. For instance, perhaps the infamous division of Man and Nature is propaganda for the war between mitochondria and photosynthesis. We should likewise be wary of the “laws” that go unquestioned within each system of objects and representations. We fill our lives and equations with these constants. We trust them as immutable laws, though they are repeatedly unmasked as emergent power-laws instead. Indeed, they are reliable to the extent the agents of their system continue to obey the axioms. The categories of the mind and the constants of physics may be one in the same re-valuation.

Does this mean you should stop “believing in” gravity? No. Does this mean you should assume the entire world is in your solipsistic head, and that you can gain mystical control over its illusions? No. Likewise, one should not shy from conceptualizing such foolishness, searching for what lies beneath it. Metaphysics means little more than a long-running “To Do” list of semiotic intelligent observation. Rather than a platform, a partisan statement, we will claim metaphysical agnosticism as a complex function, a tool in our toolkit, one that suspends our disbelief, our desperation to delude ourselves with fantastic answers, long enough to evolve as scientists and philosophers our available information.

Einstein revolutionized physics with special and then general relativity; Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and others built quantum reality “below” their perception; by unlocking mathematical considerations, this complex agnosticism function has become supercomputers in our pockets. We have networked the world. We have begun collecting data that separates pattern from chaos. We may embed artificial superintelligence within our human bodies. Certainty was always the greatest enemy of discovery. We should “play with” each metaphysical option, compare where they lead us, and question what we are missing.

In practice, continuing the example of gravity, maintaining metaphysical agnosticism permits pursuit of paths that may appear to compete. Like music, superficial contradictions in one measure may harmonize with impressive strength later. If all reality is cybernetic, binary bits that interpreted as space-time, light, matter, and gravity, even if one believed it a game or a dream, we can maneuver against each law, leveraging another law against it. Emergent power-laws are economic. If all reality is substantial physicality, we should keep looking for a physical source that produces gravitational force. Representation is political. In the end, there will be no difference between a cosmos that is many or one, mental or natural, wave or particle – each false dichotomy belies two vectors of the same superposition. We should play little games with our truth-ideas. We should enjoy our serious games, taking these ideas, smashing them, freezing them, shooting them with lasers; whether philosophically, mathematically, or physically.

Axioms of Quantum Liberty

Many philosophers, teachers, coaches, and priests attempt to hide that their arguments reach a conclusion they held from the beginning. Inspired by the scientific method, like any father who gains a moment of insight from the simple wisdom of his child, we as philosophers should be forthcoming at the outset regarding our axiomatics; we can all join this game on equal footing and with adequate forewarning, knowing the table stakes and the half-time accoutrements up front; or feel free not to play.


Axiom 1 – Metaphysical Agnosticism

We cannot know what is “behind” the world of physicality, but one paradigm has proven most valuable for information discovery. Methodical Naturalism, in practice, is the assumption there is nothing metaphysical. There always exists a sufficient reason for any idea, explained through causation, physicality, and semiotics. Therefore, we will treat the mind-matter continuum as one substance experienced two ways.

We cannot guarantee the origin of our perceptual reality prior to our participation in understanding it. The ubiquitous consistency of truth-value attains many explanations throughout the history of philosophy:

  1. Categories of the mental machine and its physical method of processing the world “behind” our experiences (without color, light, texture, or space-time)
  2. Equilibrium truth-values already socially engendered, becoming quietly ready for disruption (example: the Copernican revolution)
  3. The world is exactly as we perceive it “under” the light and color (naïve realism) or close enough that technology can supplement the remaining perception (speculative realism)
  4. We are in a video game or a long dream.

The simplest explanation lies in a refusal to become carried away, caught up in the distinctions between any of these possibilities. These distinctions always lie in conceptual inconsistencies rather than genuine experience. Whatever the cosmos is, we play a consistent game with rules that we may discover through diligence, discipline, and a dedication to proper questioning. Moreover, anywhere we find a metaphysical explanation we are prudent to approach its purveyors with a cautious suspicion of the power their system of belief seeks in the world. The bulk of metaphysical explanations are not only intellectually lazy but also party to a history of ideological domination and abuse. We will seek out and exploit axiomatics of the economic game of consciousness while maintaining this suspicion, even doubting ourselves.

Axiom 2 – Pragmatist Epistenomics

To the arborescent mind of the mathematician, physicist, techn0logist, or philosophical logician, the limits of valuation-signification are far from unsettling. Instead, the analyst considers valuation of hypothesis, error, and backpropogation the basis of an information-rich cosmos. The quanta of pragmatist Epistenomics is the encoded truth-idea. This code is an information commodity, always produced by a system. The truth-idea gains market dominance through exchange; there is no unexchanged truth. The equilibrium price of an idea is its marginal cost in believer actions.Axiom 3 – Fractal Cascade Ontology

Existence as we can perceive it, as endless revolutions of becoming, constantly produces self-similarity. When we observe our universe under the assumption that we distort all perception by the methods of the mind, we create valuable new paths of hypothesis. By looking for patterns, fractals, and ratios we uncover what others miss. Smashing ideas together to see what feels theoretically elegant is a reasonable path for brainstorming.

Axiom 4 – Machinic Operability

When we attempt to confirm the hypotheses we make, it is fortuitous to do so under the assumption that the cosmos is pure information-physicality, and experiment with due diligence that we may cause outcomes that exceed our control. We thus treat any multi-actor economy as capable of producing Quantum Liberty, in which Machinic Agency at one plane and apparent Machinic Operability at its Quantum are co-determinate and freely exchanged throughout.

We will treat liberty of will-to-power, exchange under representation, as an emergent property of the cosmic system. For any given particularized Level of Observation, we will find agency generated out of sufficient freedom for choice and sufficient determinism for responsibility. Moreover, we will treat this as a category of mind that does not undermine humanistic free will, but treats it as a sociopolitical construct that requires stability of semiotic laws. This further stabilizes systems that are orders of magnitude above or below the “peer” phase space.

Axiom 5 – Existential Psychodynamics

The distinctions of the mind-body duality are purely existential processes: a problem of focus rather than ghosts, caricatures, and dreams. We build axiomatized arborescence where we focus our particularized observations; all tangentially unobserved probabilities spread like intertwined rhizomes “just behind” intelligent consciousness.

Axiom 6 – The Will-to-Power

Because we cannot directly observe a Level of Observation lower than quantum mechanics, we will not discuss the substance of the cosmos. However, its clear tendency to generate creativity lies in three axiomatic nodes of Continuous Experimentation: representation, expansion, and acceleration. We will discuss Will-to-Power and its ramifications for our Fractal Ontology based upon this foundation. There is no substance “under” the quantum waves and particles, only the leaning, propensity, or vector of expansion. This emerges as first-principle and categorical imperative; to not only reproduce, but to become more. To the extent this is a probable motion, rather than a substance, we will take competing notions of fundamental substance – Truth, Spirit, Capital, Energy, and Libido – and treat them as facets of Will-to-Power as if the many heads of a single monster, all incapable of speaking the same language.

Axiom 7 – The Labor Physics of Information

The Information Age and the Postmodern Era have come to fruition, out of century of Quantum Physics and the technological revolution that it spawned from its axiomatics. The task we have yet to do as philosophers lies in backpropagating the pragmatic Epistenomics implied by quantum mechanics, its paradigm of waves and particles. Moreover, this ripple effect likely will go “the long way around” to fully cross-pollinate with our other sciences. Therefore, our goal is to merge quantum mechanics with economics to better understand the needs of a post-singularity humanity. Every philosopher up to Schopenhauer, William James, and Bertrand Russell believe that the law of contradiction was a priori infallible. Quantum Liberty, in contrast, must experiment with the problem of superposition.

Universes of Thought

“So subtle is the discernment of man, and so great the power of some men to single out the most fugitive elements of what passes before them, that these new formations have no limit. Aspect within aspect, quality after quality, relation upon relation, absences and negations as well as present features, end by being noted and their names added to the store of nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, and prepositions by which the human mind interprets life. […]

Different universes of thought thus arise, with specific sorts of relation among their ingredients. The world of common-sense things; the world of material tasks to be done; the mathematical world of pure forms; the world of ethical propositions; the worlds of logic, of music, etc., all abstracted and generalized from long forgotten perceptual instances, from which they have as it were flowered out, return and merge themselves again in the particulars of our present and future perception.”

– William James, Some Problems of Philosophy

Some consultants are dogmatic. Others are self-aggrandizing in their endless pedantry. Many may be accused of providing answers that are too “philosophical” or subjective. What this really means, for anyone outside the exchange, is that the manager does not want  their Universe of Thought challenged. They seek an outsider to build a wall around their echo chamber. Even if that manager’s cohesive system of beliefs is the source of the organization’s dysfunction, admitting that two Universes of Thought may have plausible utility terrifies them.

We must take care when faced with this. Consultants, Philosophers, Coaches, and Scrum Masters all find themselves in a long series of discussions in which someone asks for information but will only listen to what validates their existing beliefs. In such cases, like a psychologist, we must remove ourselves from the conversation. Through questioning, listening, and subtly challenging the objectivity of stated ideas, allow the manager to complete the real conflict, surfacing the argument that only really has bearing within their own mind.

Game Theory of Philosophy


Every game in our cosmic-economic system begins with its axiomatics; those underlying rules that its players and police hold as self-evident to promote and perpetuate the game. Baseball has three strikes, America has its dream, and capitalism loves freedom. Each machinic information system, even those built single-handedly by a philosopher, develop their foundations upon such axioms, assumptions, and self-evidence. The difference lies in how transparently the observer acknowledges these “self-evident” underpinnings of belief. To secure the axiomatics falls within the spectrum of warfare, in which the sociopolitical force that one system may exert over or against other systems gains expression. No ideas become validated or invalidated through violence. No truth becomes self-evident through war. Only war itself, and the faith humankind places in war, gains any ground in its axioms. Countless lives find their end in a refusal admit that an assumption may be incorrect, often not of their own refusal but of some distant leader.

The line between strong opinions and open warfare, or between one war and another, becomes difficult to trace. The orientation of a system of values against, for secret purposes of domination, any system of significance; this we may call Maneuver Economics. We have discussed these practices in detail throughout Invasive Ideology. The most powerful tool of Maneuver Economics is the capacity to axiomatize other information systems, forcing others to subordinate their internal Information Dominance as an integrated component of a collective presumption of Hegemonic Truth.

In this way, axiomatization that dominates through absorption is semiotic Oedipalization, relegating a rebellious child-system of signs under its father-system of signs. Viewed over time and from a distance, the systems of signs that gain coherence become tree-like. This is Arborescence. Arborescence is a mode of analytic thought that continuously branches, triangulating in a plane that emerges as a power-law between gravity and the sun. This at the heart of all despotic dominance, all control of the individual in society, the driving force of phallic capitalism, and the immense growth of the sciences out of philosophy.

If the cosmos, economy, or mind could all be Oedipalized into arborescence through axiomatization, this begs the question of what we mean by axiomatization itself and its significance in the conducts of our lives. Axiomatics, however coherent the system of rules, can only become “true” to the extent an actor desires participation in the game. The rules of football, baseball, or boxing are not truth-ideas that Clerics aspire to drive toward Hegemonic Truth. No one looks to metaphysics or religion to justify the proper number of rounds, innings, periods, or any other fundamental rule of each sport. Yet, regardless of how arbitrary their original invention or the history by which they came into consistent practice, each new player learns them from a more experienced player. The experienced player presents the rules as self-evident, table stakes to participate in the game. Either you want to play the game, by these rules, or you do not want to play. Full stop. End of argument. The history of philosophy has been the exposure of axiomatics like this, in which the rules of the game as it exists reveal themselves to have no basis other than the game itself.

Baseball has a three-strike rule. It is a rule with no intrinsic worth higher or lower relative to any other potential number of strikes per batter – two, four, seven… Yet at this point, whatever convenience it served players when the game, through oral and practical tradition, invented norms and standardized its conduct, “Three Strikes” has now been axiomatized into the legacy of baseball. Look how strange American culture reinvents other systems of rules based on this axiomatic. Three Strikes has spread into parenting, penal codes, politics, and business.

One may trace the history of its origins and its application in practice, but in the face of such axiomatic dogma no game will permit a meaningful exploration of the question “Why?” This question is meaningless. The impact of axiomatization has immense significance. Another axiom lies buried under every game, the greatest rule of all paternalism: so long as every player has the same rules applied to them, the game is fair. Paternalism is an Umpire. The game, produced by machinic information systems, must axiomatize every outcome, expanding the book of its rules into every exceptional possibility, axiomatizing every outcome into its cohesive framework. Each game becomes an ideological system, reproducing itself through confidence and certainty. Players consider every potential unfairness in support of the self-evident rule at the foundation. In baseball, it is that of three strikes – three strikes become an out, the first two foul balls count as strikes, and if the hitter does not swing at a pitch in the strike zone it is a strike. An entire system builds off a handful of arbitrary rules.

All this serious rule-making, conformity, and enforcement comes with investment. Without billions of dollars spent on fields, training, coaches, players, and the revenue at stake for the winners, such a foolish consistency might not seem as important. Baseball enjoys, in the professional arena, an axiomatizing subordination within capitalism. Capitalism likewise prefers a handful of arbitrary beliefs about fairness as its entire basis, as does any opposing socioeconomic philosophy. One distinction lies in the utter simplicity of its foundation that allows capitalism to axiomatize every other system, including the sale of opposing beliefs. This axiomatic has three nodes: representation, expansion, and acceleration.

Before we continue, let us understand the only real alternative by completing the example of sports. In contrast with the axiomatization necessary for the investment of massive franchises, children left to their own free play often do not formally agree to any complete rules of baseball. Every rule is open to experimentation. They may use tennis balls instead of baseballs, run down-and-back in the absence of four bases, or play without separation of teams. If the wish to take their practice more seriously, they mimic adults. They play a game free of the axiomatizing power of subordination under salaries, bets, investments, and lawsuits. This leaves their sociopolitical product more open to re-valuation.

This likewise introduces heartache and lesser forms of civil warfare. Suppose the children agree to a five-strike rule, or agree to not define any area as foul. Such an arbitrary change of axiomatics will matter little so long as democratic agreement holds steady. That is, as any father knows wells, until one child sees an advantage in unilaterally changing one of these arbitrary rules. In an unfettered phase space, machinic information systems have this childish tendency, to produce unfair games, systems that encourage cheating, winning based on manipulation rather than skill. It is in these moments that Oedipalization of the game becomes the path of resolution for the players, despite their original desire to escape supervision through free play.

When the unfair “nature of the game” cannot attain resolution with an equilibrium exchange of truth-ideas, one of two options occurs. Without a trusted source of resolution, an arborescent father-figure, such a ball field is independent of triangulation under a dominating axiomatic. Then a child is likely to “take their ball and go home” – a metaphor adults use often to describe anyone frustrated with the intricacies of the self-evident foundations of our various machinic information systems. The other option is to bring a parent to the field, thereby ruining the free play of childish creativity.

Now we have two problems in our metaphor. Some systems, some games, one cannot simply “walk away” from. We cannot take our ball and go home when it comes to death, taxes, and a few other axiomatic elements of social and existential facticity. This triangulation of unfairness follows one of two paths. On the one hand, players seek external retribution via paternal information systems by telling mom, calling dad, going to court, or going to war. On the other hand, players seek internal vindication by displacing conflict to a self-evident, autonomous information dominance: “This is how it has always been, there is no helping it,” or “Everyone must do it the same way, so there’s no sense arguing.” These two methods form the normative boundaries of all civilization. They are an integral outcome of the Genetic Capitalism of Will-to-Power. This is the ultimate axiomatic, the capitalism of life-codes. “Thou Shalt integrate your code or your contribution dies with you.”

Many philosophers, teachers, coaches, and priests attempt to hide that their arguments reach a conclusion they held from the beginning. Inspired by the scientific method, like any father who gains a moment of insight from the simple wisdom of his child, we as philosophers should be forthcoming at the outset regarding our axiomatics; we can all join this game on equal footing and with adequate forewarning, knowing the table stakes and the half-time accoutrements up front; or feel free not to play.

Doubt, Distrust, and Transformation

When we discuss process control, continuous improvement, and well-formed teams, we hope this helps our workers find value, meaning, and significance in their work. Despite the economic benefits, the decision to transform is an ethical and political one. This explains the paradox that makes this exciting work for a philosopher: autonomy is a loss of control that increases certainty, knowledge grows exponentially the less you try to own it, and teams create more value when you give them the tools, point them at their user, and get out of the way.

Fortunately, when we look to Systems Theory for insights about “transformation” there is a clear definition: Transformation is a drastic shift in capacity to adapt, endure, or recover against new forms of stress, without loss of one’s identity. This perspective has become quite philosophical for me despite my relentless pragmatism on the job. The limit of any organization’s ability to shift lies at the boundary of its identity. As a coach this is the shift from dependence on external formality (waterfall contracts) to internal autonomy (continuous delivery). If a company must lose part of its core identity to build a culture of innovation they will not succeed in making this shift (despite the mantra “We’re all tech companies now”).

Biological evolution is a gradual process of variety through mutation, deadly mistakes, and explosive luck, driven by circumstances and decentralized selection. When we discuss ecological systems, we mean the opposite of evolution and its chaos. Ecology takes the biological status quo of a geographic region, reached through evolution, and projects onto it a human-defined identity. As Felix Guattari explains in The Three Ecologies, ethical and political responsibility are inherent in ecology, because ecology is managed. An “ecology” is a biological system that needs its identity managed by humans. Likewise, an organization is a managed system, even when its management is highly distributed, locally adaptive, and structurally complex. Leadership is the practice of cultivating the ecological resilience of the organization. A resilient organization has leadership capable of redefining its values to ensure its long-run viability.

More importantly, once a system is ecological rather merely evolving, it can never be not-managed. Like the moral responsibility I bear if someone leaves a baby on my doorstep, we either manage or mismanage the ecology of our organization as a leader. While our society is not yet comfortable with the questions implied by this daunting moral responsibility managed through corporate leadership, we cannot avoid the ethical, social, and political burden it represents. Leaders can only manage or mismanage this moral agency. All choices are strategic and every moment is a choice.

My perspective of transformation remains heavily influenced by my first major career role, in a company focused on wellness and physique transformation. There is a simple premise in physique transformation – if you change your nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle choices, you can lose fat, gain muscle, and improve your mood, energy, and sex drive. This is rarely successful without someone helping you question your beliefs, self-discipline, honesty, actions, and values. Those who succeed at maintaining their new physique were able to unchain their core identity from the lifestyle. Those who fail, very often, are facing the terrifying reality that if they drastically change their value system, away from beers, cheese burgers, and binge-watching, they are losing the only identity they have. When a lifestyle is someone’s entire identity, they will do anything to keep it intact.

Lean (process) transformation, Agile transform, and Digital transformation requires the same coaching that a physique transformation requires. Make a critical analysis of the habits of an organization, question the underlying beliefs that perpetuate behaviors, and reveal the assumptions that introduce dysfunction in the accomplishment of their core identity. Transformation relies on a gradual change in interpretation of identity and values by everyone in an organization. Because most of what we believe is distorted, biased, and habitual, transformation begins and drives forward base on a single imperative: questioning our beliefs.

In The Problems of Philosophy, logician and philosopher Bertrand Russell tackles this problem head-on.

A horse which has been often driven along a certain road resists the attempt to drive him in a different direction. Domestic animals expect food when they see the person who feeds them. We know that all these rather crude expectations of uniformity are liable to be misleading. The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken. But in spite of the misleadingness of such expectations, they nevertheless exist. The mere fact that something has happened a certain number of times causes animals and men to expect that it will happen again. Thus our instincts certainly cause us to believe the sun will rise to-morrow, but we may be in no better a position than the chicken which unexpectedly has its neck wrung.

Throughout his analysis of what can be known, it becomes clear that knowledge has little to do with truth–it is a problem of trust. What we can trust to be real, trust to be true, trust to keep us safe: the boundary of insanity is defined by collective agreement that a person should no longer trust their ideas, perceptions, beliefs.

When someone trusts their beliefs to the detriment those around him, in a pattern of behavior that is socially unacceptable, they need help. We all trust our beliefs over any evidence to the contrary. An alcoholic suffers not only from chemical processes shared by the obsession over professional athletes sports, Facebook, or the stock ticker, they share the awful reality that the most important and longest-lasting relationship is the one destroying every other value they claim to believe in. When I say that corporations, under poor leadership, present symptoms of process addiction, I mean it precisely in this formal, medical sense. Anyone can pursue pleasure and distraction, but a meaningful life requires us to choose, quite deliberately, what pain is worthwhile based on the values we prioritize.

The philosopher, therapist, and transformation coach all share the same practice. They help people confront the validity of their own beliefs without picking a fight. It is essential to stay the referee because, after all, the fight is between the believer and the beliefs. Resistance and denial are inevitable as soon that fight can be displaced onto someone else, so the coach stays neutral, guiding the process instead.

When we bear the responsibility of leadership, it is critical that we not wait to question the ethical, political, and societal ramifications of our identity and values; we must not put it off until backlash requires interrogation or intervention. We must pursue this wisdom ourselves, daily, in order to live well and help others to also live well. This cannot be left to our home-life or restricted to the terms of our contracts. We must continuously doubt, question actively, and distrust any belief explained by “That’s how it has always been. No one can change it. This is who we are.”

It is only when someone gains a healthy distrust of their own certainty that they can question the origin, validity, and measurement of their values. It is only when someone recognizes the disconnect between who they claim they are, what they claim to value, and their patterns of behavior that run counter to these claims that they can take steps to change. It is only when someone understands the denial and destruction of value required to maintain their beliefs that they then replace bad answers with questions that are continuously better-asked.

This is the real secret of transformation: everything is constantly experimenting, while stagnation arises only through cowardice and denial of moral responsibility. Consistency and change arise from the same set of decisions that will need to be made repeatedly, so the opportunity for transformation is always there, at every level. The entire organization, given the opportunity, will shift the terms of the experiment in favor of more meaningful work. Anchor the vision of the future as though it is central to your past, your identity, the core of what you value, and doubt the validity of any belief that does not serve this future.