Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Standard Model (An Introduction to Imaginary Friends - Part II)

Editor's note:*
Yes, this is the introduction and work statement that accompanies Imaginary Friends. I am leaving comments open on both the posts that unfold this poem and the individual chapters of the novel, and I invite my readers to conduct a conversation relating the information in the narrative to the expression of the structure in these verses.

I also want to take a moment to spell out dedications:

“Standard Model” is for Ibby Grace, Kerima Cevik, Melanie Yergeau, and Nicole Nicholson, who are all people who challenged me to find new metaphors that provide an understanding of my way of being to people whose methods of cognition are not necessarily like mine, whether that is because of personal taste, education, race, social class, religion, gender, or for any other reason. I will admit now that it was the section written with the most love.

“Sense Information as a Superfluid Movement” and “Look for our communications if you want us to bother with your language.” will post Wednesday. “Sense Information” is for Nick Walker and Kassiane Sibley, who remind me constantly of the relationship between my mental health and my physical being. I would not be able to regulate my body well enough to communicate what I really mean if I did not have their constant motion creating tidal forces to modify my trajectory. “Look for our communications” is for Alyssa Hillary, the person I know who most exemplifies what should be meant by people who use the term “self-advocate ACTIVIST.”

“Poetry as Scaffolding” and “Narrative, Literacy, and cross-Cultural communicating” will post Thursday. “Poetry as Scaffolding” is for Zach Richter, whose challenges to my communications as I have been writing have been both necessary and exciting, because they underscore the importance of the entire project of this book and its associated discourse verse. “Narrative, Literacy, and” is dedicated to myself, because I have painted my way into a corner in a wonderfully stimulating room and I need something explicit to code switch out of it so I can write prose again. Please read it as a moment of personal reflection and transformation.

Then, on Friday, Imaginary Friends begins.

*If you missed part I, it's here.

II. Standard Model


Ethos is your character and credibility.
It is also the basic theory
that the sum total of
our actions
should be used
when judging
the believability
of any piece
of information we
disseminate publicly.

This is a double-edged
method of assessment
and can be deployed
to debunk bad theory
(using Schopenhauer's strategies)
like Machiavelli,
in order to accomplish a cultural coup d'etat
against overwhelming forces
despite your own hypocrisy,
like some kind of degenerate,
low down,
Tea Partying


Pathos is supposed to be empathy,
but when blown out of proportion to its effect on the audience
it degenerates into simple sympathy,
and from there to pity,
and from there to a clawing need
to free oneself
from the vicinity
of this person's predatory,
that always seem to serve their needs
and leave me exhausted and unable
to set my own agenda and know my own long-term goals.

It makes me get stuck rambling
(like Kant)
on tangential rants,
demonstrating the way that pathos plays
(both negatively and positively)
on your credibility,
while still owing
its effectiveness
to the ethos
you've established.

It's not deductive, but coherently co-operative,
a codependent constellation of ideas
who must be derived from a fundamental
particle of language.


This brings us to logos,
the third essential particle
in our atomic model
rhetorical triangle.

Because the degenerate
low-energy states
of both ethos and pathos
seem to have been depleted of their logos
it is easy to fall into the fallacy of believing
that this is the fundamental particle of reality.

Actually, it is an essential
element of the others,
but their decay
is not a total
depletion of their logos,
it is simply
what I said earlier—
a degenerate,
low-energy state.

If there had been no logos left,
the depletion would be complete
and there would be
no resulting matter
to examine.

The matter that isn't there
doesn't matter
to our understanding
of existence.

Get it?

Still, while the other particles in our triangle
are composed of logos in an energetic interaction with itself,
logos is itself composed of another fundamental particle
interacting with an undefined space in probability,
a narrow chance that is partially
dependent on the effect it generates.
A quantum irregularity in our cultural understanding,
but nonetheless
a counterintuitive truth about
the matter of our rhetoric
and its influence,
however dire,
on our rhetoric of matter.


This is the imposition of the mythic,
the contextual weight
of our existing body
of shared narrative,
presenting sometimes with the diversity
of our history,
and at others with the blunt, monocultural blank slate,
the obliteration of nature inherent in industrialized society,
the world-wide destruction of individualized identities,
the edifice that exists as the reality of our ignorance,
white supremacy.

We can't have this discussion without admitting its existence,
because it dominates the mythic's basic fabric at this point in history,
dictating its context to the daily living
of an unbelievably large portion of humanity.

This happens because of the exploitation of the mythic itself,
since it is a sort of self-perpetuating phenomenon wherein
the nature of the existence of the mythic
the fact of its interaction with itself at all states,
and the nature of this point of singularity
is such that it gives rise,
by a function of probability,
to the field
through which
excited logos passes
on its way
to generate
the narrative states
of our emotional expressions.

With the mythic's current state understood
as the particle that arises as an interaction
an energetic field of probability
and a metaphor for self-perpetuating white supremacy,
it probably isn't surprising that the parallel particle of matter
in the physics from which we draw our metaphor
has seen its naming
go to just one theorist
(who is a nice guy and does deserve it),
despite the theoretical conception of its existence
having arisen among a population of diverse researchers
across cultures,
some of whom did not even know each other.

This spooky action at a distance is something we'll call entanglement,
and it is caused by the resulting dynamic
when the mythic is interacts
(without contact)
with its antiparticle,
the cynic.


You see, it is the nature of the mythic to eschew the literal,
which can make the phenomenon of its transmission highly volatile,
as the rhetor can not be sure that the energetic state of the particle
will match the energetic state of (his/her/their/zir/our) audience.

If it doesn't, then the audience isn't receptive
because their understanding of your concepts
is filled in by existing knowledge
of the emissions
of these subvocabulatory states
when observed in the original
rhetorical triangle,
and the conflict caused
by their interpretations
in different senses
of the sense of your message
is because the mythic
is highly dependent
on context.

The cynic is the mythic emissions of other rhetors,
capable of canceling our own mythic emission
or operating in a dialectic harmony with it
depending on the stage of its
solipsistic self-causal interaction.

(This is a counterintuitive circular truth
forced on us by physics
against Aristotle's most hopefully naïve wishes.)

(I leave the rest of this proof as an exercise for the academicians.
To paraphrase Fermat, I know what it is
but I can't fit it into the narrow margins.)


The cynic is the presence of other mythics,
an antiparticle in that it balances the mythic's existence,
but not in the sense that it necessarily creates
the obliteration of both particles
from their interactions.

That particularly energetic,
and reprehensible state
is a special case.
It only applies to those situations
where white supremacy
encounters something that isn't it.

We learn to detect the presence of the cynic
by disturbances in our energetic states
caused by the cynic's interactions
with the mythic field
(not our particular mythic particle).
This field is, (as you will remember from part d.),
the mathematical description of all the probabilistic outcomes
that can possibly express the mythic particle's existence.

This means that the antiparticle
of the mythic
is that same particle
at another energy level
or another point in the field,
and that the mythic
can be understood
as the phenomenon
that both gives rise to
and annihilates
while also peacefully interacting
and providing the space
and the structure
and the impetus
for other interactions.
Its nature requires two names
to distinguish what is actually,
in the abstract,
an artifact.


This brings us to the next fundamental concept
in our mangled menagerie that we euphemistically call a standard model.

This particle is the suspension of the mythic in time,
an element of controlled communication that has been expertly handled
by humanity's long legacy of public relations professionals.
This fundamental particle interacts with logos in all energy states,
affecting the presentation of the other elements of the rhetorical triangle
particles in the standard model.

It also interacts with and influences the field of the mythic
and all the particles of mythic within it
at every energy state,
and in every place
in its
at every
in its

It is the base particle of context,
the perceptual metaphor
for the basic changes
concepts of time possible.

We can call this part of the
rhetorical septalateral?
college, composition, and communication Standard Model:


It is to be understood both historically
and as a possible strategy,
because the definition of a particle
is a full-spectrum dimensional representation
of a multiverse
of laterally running
reality models
and the action of communication
in which the particle participates
affects its own baseline energy state,
resulting in the observer's intentional observation
having a predictable range of influence
on the entire superstructure.

Kairos is the particle of rhetorical time,
the unit by which messages are manipulated
across generations,
and also the cross-section
of probability
over which the interactions
of the other particles play.

Kairos is at a right angle to the other particles,
and as a result, can only be described vaguely,
(it's a field, see?)
or perhaps precisely, but with restrictions
and foul technical jargon
dictated by the nature of its existence.

Its measurable interaction with other particles
seems small but fundamental,
we could be missing something,
since we are unable to observe the full field of Kairos
for any existing entity
from any vantage point
that we have the mathematics to express
and with confidence.

The phenomenon of communication seems to be constructed, then,
by an “essential combination” of rhetorical elements,
arising from invisible (but still influential)
particles in their firmament.

That leaves us a problem, though:
Whence is it?

The standard model lacks a fundamental particle,
because it can not be caused by anything
that lies within it.

Next: "Sense Information as Superfluid Movement" and "Look for our communications if you want us to bother with your language."

Interested in supporting Shaping Clay? Click here for subscription information.