[plase use the BACK key to return to your previous page]
pataphysics
(iconosphere entry)

See also, below:  {Web links} (and other docs of interest)
                  {Samuel Butler's Chicken quote}
                  {Links}

Refer also to:  -[The Robot 'z]- (a pataphysical description of that which 
                                                          thinks, feels, and moves poorly)
                -[Alfred Jarry]- (PDE theatre entry)


pataphysics was first illuminated by Alfred Jarry in his
several works, including a live performance called "merede"
(French: shit).  Needless to say this first lecture on the
subject was not well received.

To state the case quickly and efficiently:

   Pataphysics is to metaphysics as
   metaphysics is to physics.

With this rather blunt definition as a tool, one hardly
wonders that any progress has been made in pataphysics 
since the un-timely death of Jarry. (It is interesting
and important to note that despite is vast consumption
of questionable forms of ethanol, he did *not* die of
liver or kidney toxcity, but rather from malnurishment
due to an un-caring world).

NOTE: That much of your present narrators knowledge of
      pataphysics, as well as much of the information
in this article is based on the work of two of the world's
leading experts (but non-leaders -- for reasons un-likely
to become clear in this article) on pataphysics:

   Nigey Lennon (Ms. Lennon is the author of a
                 popular press (but un-likely to become a
   popular best seller, for while it DOES contain references
   to sex, nudity, and the consumption of sweets, it has no
   references to modern-day satanic cults, multi-national
   terrorist organisations bent on the destruction of civilisation
   as we know it (read that as "our God-given way of life"), nor
   even the SLIGHTEST reference to self-volumising content). Regardless
   the name of her work is "The Man with the Axe", although it is
   called "a trade paperback book", and is entitled "Alfred Jarry:
   The Man with the Axe" -- apparently it not being enough to
   name the work "The Man with the Axe" without resorting to the
   tedious habbit of repetition in the title. 

and 
   Bill Griffith, cartoonist and illustrator (best known for his
   "Zippy the PinHead" cartoons -- apparently in some small respct
   an attempt at autobiography). Mr. Griffin (as his name is often
   mis-spelled) is best know for his work involing the popular 
   expoisition of Sgt. Bilko (aka "Phil Silvers") as well as Tuesday
   Weld. 

That Pataphysics is well and treuly a proper area of study for the
present work is given by one example from [Lennon; P. 81] 

    For instance, in one of his [Jarry's] essays he 
    examined the subject of postage stamps and mail
    delivery from a droll, pseudo-anthropological 
    standpoint, theorizing [sic] that stamps must be
    objects of reverence since we kiss them on the back
    and then, with blind faith, trust them to somehow
    ensure the safe delivery of our letters to their 
    destinations. It is this deliberately off-center [sic]
    way of viewing the mundane that defines Jarry's
    genius as a writer.

Indeed, we can see that this is JUST the sort of il-logical,
out-of-the-box thinking that we need to make creative break
throughs. I would go so far, that by applying even the easiest
and most accessible precepts of 'pataphysics, we can easily
see things like the following:

   Penguins do not make either good screwdrivers or doorstops.
   (As it is well known that they have neither any experience 
   in mixed drinks -- other than krill milkshakes, and that they
   travel. But, it can clearly be seen that they would make 
   excellent braking mechanisms for trans-sonic jet planes as
   it is well known that they do NOT fly and thus, the plane
   must necessarily stop. The last assertion follows directly
   from a some-what lengthy application of pataphysics (in the
   form of an ointment similar to Doc Stephen Leacock's "Emolliant
   Ebterfuge") to the refutation of Einstein's General Theory
   of Relativity by Ernst Mach (of Mach Plane Theory) -- which
   will play prominantly in our discussions.

This last has led many absurdists to conclude that the 
study of pataphysics can only lead to a slightly lessening
of the absurdity of the world, and while many other absurditsts
hold out hope that such stuides may one day reduce the one great
of absurdity of life to at least something a bit more manageable
on the random Sunday afternoon, when the power has gone off,
and all of the beautiful people have to leave the party early.
  
Further investigations into pataphysics, has led many artists
to several conclusions:

Visual Artists often maintain:

   Jarry was a closet dadaist and afraid to expose his
   true nature for fear of the same fate that befell 
   people such as Oscar Wilde, Juan Lorca, and Gandhi.
   Unfortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon the
   distinguishing mark ') the world had a more sinister
   fate laying in wait for Jarry: Indifference.

Philosophical, Theological, and Spritiaul Artists often maintain:
   
   It has been shown by elementary [Bistro Maths] that
   that the deconstruction of pataphysics (using the rule 
   of ) ) is able to reduce pataphysics to a self-referential
   paradox on par with the proof of the non-existence of God.
   However, many linguistics scholars doubt the validity of 
   the so-called "truth" of such a ). Especially, on a Thursday.


Danse and Music artists often maintain:

   Even though you can't "really" danse to the tune of 
   pataphysics, it IS a catchy tune and would make for
   enteresting arrangements, variations, and choreography.
   [See, [LENNON, P. 65]]

Historical Artists often maintain

   Since pataphysics by its very nature depends upon its own
   post-existence (and hence upon its own pre-existance), it
   can be shown (from a historical POV (point of view)) to 
   be concistent with Hegel's view of the equation:

         Thesis + Anti-thesis --> Synthesis

   When confronted by -[Goedel's paradox]-.
-6_-
   That is: Any sufficiently complex system will contain:

        Statements which are true (and can be shown to be such).
        Statements which are false (and can be shown to be such).
        Statements which either are true and false (and can be
                   shown to defintiely one or the other), but 
                   can not be proved which is the case.
        Statements which are meaningless.
        Statements which are neither true nor false, but "imaginary".            

        (This last bit by the work of G. Spenser Brown in his work
         -["The Laws of Form"]-).

    Thus, concluding:  "Pataphysics, nothing new here".

While others (most notably Scientists, Futurists, and other serious
working philosophers) maintain:

    What a load of horse hockey!  (and thence promptly return to
                                   writing arcane proposals for
    grants which are inevitably funded much more readily and
    lucratively than the rest of the above researchers' works.

Regardless, one should view pataphysics as a very early form of
[absurdism] [Lennon maintains
that it is THE prototype (and earliest form) of absudism; 1902 or 
so); LocCit, P. 61 &ff].


Is 'Pataphysics paraphysics?

This essay was originally posted as a blog in 1/4 past Janurary 2007;
ie, approx JanMarch, 2007. It is best read while listening the the 4th
movement of John Cage's "Suite for Toy Piano" (orchestrated version)
played in continuuous/infinite loop mode)


First essay on pataphysics -- new for 2007 (mirabile annu - 
the miraculous year - i hope) 
Current mood:  calm 
Category: Art and Photography 

What is Pataphysics?

There has been much written about the subject of pataphysics,
(trying to capture the nature of this often ellusive subject)
-- as well as much not writtent *directly* about it, but often
by its very nature refering to it. The purpose of this brief
paper is to illuminate various aspects of pataphysics.

One of the earliest documenters is of course Alfred Jarry,
who took it upon himself to formalise many of the tennets
of pataphysics that had been floating around for some time,
but had not been collected in anything resembling a coherent
body of knowledge. Part of the problem involves the very 
nature of pataphysics which has been commented upon by 
Jacques Derrida as involving the self-referential paradox
as well as other impediments to understanding. So, let us 
proceed - "nose in hand" as it were.

The first problem occurs in the spelling of pataphysics 
in various languages. Unfortunately, most scholars as well
as many practicisoneurs of pataphysics suffer from the fact
that (as literary agents) they have not had time to master 
more than one language -- other than ancient Latin, Sanskrit
or some other auxilliary language. In keeping with Mark Twain's
assertion (to Mormons) that "no man may serve two masters", we
find that most literarily skilled writers devote their entire
lives to their "mother tongue". Thus, rare are poets that are
skilled in more than one langauge. 

Thus, while much of our knowledge of pataphysics owes much to
the extensive works of the French writer and philosopher Alfred
Jarry, it suffers from the language of French. Indeed the modern
spelling of the word of  'pataphysics ['sic] itself is in question:
According to the on-line (free) encylopaedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%99Pataphysics" target="_blank">"Wiki"]

     Jarry mandated the inclusion of the apostrophe 
     in the orthography "to avoid a simple pun," 
     the pun possibly being patte à physique (leg 
     of physics), as interpreted by Jarry scholars 
     Keith Beaumont and Roger Shattuck, or possibly 
     pas ta physique (not your physics), or maybe 
     "Pâte à physique" (physics dough).

That such problems occur in a demonstrably poetic language
such as French brings to the fore a very direct problem in 
dealing with pataphysics as such. I shall try to contact my
friend and scholar Dr. Lee for her views on the problems
of translation in/from/of Korean.

Regardless of these meta-problems, we must try to proceed to
detail the aspects of pataphysics - for such is much of the
need for more information. Indeed, even wiki is scant to have
much of any use other than historical exposition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pataphysics" target="_blank">here]

Well, then, 'Pataphysics is...

One of Jarry's contributions to pataphysics was to state that
"pataphysics is the science of imaginary solutions". In saying
this, he was not refering to imainary chemical solutions, but
in a way of thinking "outside the box" -- i am of course speaking
for myself, and gladly welcome all comments, criticisms, ideas,
links, and other essays on the subject; via blogmail on this site.

To go beyond Jarry's (often like Derrida's) playfull approach to
defining the un-definable, we would approach this via a more 
usefull expression by Jarry that "pataphysics is to metaphysics,
as metaphysics is to physics" -- not an exact quote, although
this may be due to Ionessco rather than Jarry. 

That is, pataphysics attempts to delve even deeper into the 
nature of things than does either metaphysics or physics physics.
Since the turn of the 1800c/1900c physics has become the "fair
haired lad" of science and indeed human understanding. This
due mostly to its outrageous successes. To review briefly,
once Democritis' "atomic theory" was put on a firm experimental
basis and Einsein's "relativity theory" was put into practice
in the most horrible of ways, there has been no stopping physics.
Of course, physics has had to pay the price for success and has
at last run out of steam (metaphorically speaking), now contenting
itself to answer such philosophical musings such as "The nature
of everything", "The origin of the universe", as well as that
elusive philosopher's stone that even Einstein was unable to
make much progress on: The Unified Field Equation. Compare this 
to the philosopher/author Douglas Noel Adams' tongue-in-cheek 
(and therefore absurdist/serious) idea that THE answer to "the 
great question of life, the universe, and everything" is given 
simply (and some-what absurdly) by the ANSWER of "42".

Thus, while many subjects attempt to big note themselves by
attaching their name to physics (eg, biophysics, psychophyics,
etc - excluding the study of astral phenomenon encompassed by
paraphysics which is as valid an extension of physics as are
metaphysics and pataphysics), pataphysics humbly approaches
the way of understanding, quite literally "picking up the pieces"
left behind in the battle to push back the curtains of ignornance.

Thus, physics refuses to deal with ANY areas of paraphysics
(the sciences/philosophies of the occult, extra-sensory 
perceptions (ESP's), etc). And physics and religion both 
(having sorted out the "boundaries of their respective 
territories" - in much the same way that gangs demark 
their areas of domination), refuse to deal with matters 
of metaphysics (the sciences/philosophies of the usual
triadic exposition resulting from the interplay of 
Epistimology, Ontology, and Phenomenology). 

This concept of "divy-ing up the territory" is an important
one to consider, briefly. Following the renaissance and the
advent of "modernism", there are "the big three" areas of
human endeavour:  Physics, Religion and Government. The 
practice of these areas borders on the totalitarian much
of the time - having staked out their claim as to how to
deal with the "universe of discourse" (to use Einstein's 
term for the world that we see (or not) around us). From
their point of view, they've got it made. 

Physics deals with all physical phenomenon (or at least 
its study) and lords it over the lessor sciences such 
as chemistry, biology, and geology -- totally ignoring 
for the most part the so-called "soft sciences"; eg, 
sociology, psychology, anthropology, history, etc.

Religion deals with the concept of fear: Fear of death,
fear of a vengefull (male) god, and when needed fear
of the boogey man (again a MALE god: the devil).

Government (backed by the technology that physics provides
and the social control that religion supplies) holds 
court over all the rest. 

Thus, this triumverit pervades the totality and essence
of all human experience -- indeed, all three preclude
any consideration of non-human (ie, non-anthropomorphic)
existance or indeed existence.

And of course ALL THREE ignore entirely the aesthetics 
(eg, art, music, theatre, danse, etc) -- unless they 
need a catchy jingle or a stunning visual effect.

Thus, while the rather romantic idea of "organised crime"
(eg, the Sopranos) might fill the popular imagination, 
the real *threat* to free thinking and human progress
is by: Organised physics (read this as technology without
compassion), organised religion (read this as philosophy
without tollerance), and organised governement (read this
as hegononmy without diversity).

   See also: -[Diversity is wher you look for it.]-  (M/S Power Point slide show)

It is interesting to note that while physicists, religionists,
and governmentists disdain the areas of philosophy, paraphysics, 
metaphysics, and pataphysics - the practicioners in these areas 
have little argument with each other, and more often than not 
have arguments with the big three and their cavalier attitude
to the consequences of arrogant action.

-- well, there's a start anyway,

Frank

******** Other thoughs added later

It is very odd the bit about evolution and how it sets certain 
religous types "off". (As i mentioned one time, there was a very 
hoopy Christian priest on TV who sed that he had no problem with 
evolution, saying that it was simply how God created the unvierse. 
-- very rare such open-minded froodz as that who sass where it's 
all at!) Regardless, it's VERY odd when we think of physicists 
as the ULTIMATE scientist type to find so many of them don't 
believe in evolution and still refuse to say that we can ever 
know WHY -- as though this "god person" (almost always the HE 
in the Big-Three's cosmogoy; ie, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) 
has some real reason for keeping us in the dark about the why-ness 
of things. None-the-less, as i often put it: "It's possible that 
even god herself evovles" -- always rattles someone's cage that 
remark does. 

But, mean while Cage's concerto for toy piano didn't feel the 
void, but rather fed it (on a Tuesday of course).

--42--

And post finally: Remember as Jarry himeself noted: A steady diet of
                  'pataphysics (no matter how intellectually filling)
                  will NOT feed the belly well -- even on a Tuesday!    

References:  See "Theatre of the Absurd" under -[I've been here an hour, and STILL no Godot!]-


  

Butler's Chicken

This was remembered by a process, 
 which was inspired by the AU Institute of Pataphysical Research
  
   "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg." 
                  -- Samuel Butler

http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html

Reference data required for 'pataphysical completeness:

   <The Iliad By Homer Written 800 B.C.E Translated by Samuel Butler
    > -[here]- 

  

Web links

-[wiki pedia entry]-
     

-['pataphysics Research Library]-
      -[Jarry: The Passion Consdered as an Uphill Bicycle Race]-
      -[Van Dyke's attempt to un-ravel the chronology tangle.]-


-[AU: The Institute of Pataphysical Studies (pataphysica)]-

-[]-

-[]-

-[]-

-[]-

-[]-



 
Links

  -[www: dabble.com]- (good jump page)