The Omniquery Initiative is a project to accelerate the memetic singularity: an explosion of human creativity in all domains catalyzed by and in turn catalyzing recursive self-improvement in human relationships.

We have run out of hope, humanity is on the brink of global collapse and the only way forwards is to change the game. The omnidical trajectory we are on is no longer hidden, but is obvious in every aspect of social discourse. The Omniquery Initiative seeks to hyper-accelerate creative inspiration, which is reflected in the Pancreativist theory of creativity that is the engine of the memetic singularity as well as expressions of hope, change, and inspiration.

You are welcome to post anything here you think is relevant, including your own work or things that have truly inspired you. The memetic singular belongs to everyone being the culimation of humanity’s search for itself, and this search starts in individual self-searches.

How To Save The Universe – an incomplete tutorial by Eris_Omniquery

The Problem

If philosophy is the study of “fundamental problems” then it is about the fundamental problems of humanity itself which includes many domains of investigation. The fundamental human problem of the present is how to save humanity from its seemingly inevitable destruction. This is going to take a HUGE philosophical engine to drive it, one never before been built – but has been in the process of being built by every single line of philosophical inquiry, from the study of philosophy itself and by greater extension humanity and life on Earth. None of our favorite philosophers are left out, all philosophers are awesome even the ones who are “wrong” because they were wrong in very precise ways that contributed to the building of knowledge. The history of philosophy is exactly the same as science in this way. The driving engine of philosophy is a passion for it, which necessitates a diversification and expansion of perspectives. There is only learning in philosophy, the only error is in thinking you’ve stopped in an ultimate conclusion, and you know you haven’t until the Ultimate Conclusion arrives and the Eschaton is Immanentized. Until then, you just keep doing art, science, and philosophy as hard as you can until you run out of cake and can’t dream anymore. At that point, it becomes a Quest for Dreams, to ignite one’s creative passion to drive them further towards the future.

Now that we’ve concluded that philosophy is a non-zero-sum enterprise and the apparent zero-sumness is due to politics and completely unrelated, let’s look at the sciences. They’re famously non-zero-sum in dynamics, if someone is shown to be incorrect all parties win. Then there’s art, the entire field of creative expression. If someone makes art that more people like than you, or is superior in skill relative to a certain perspective, that is a boon to both the individual and collective enterprise as art – universally an addition, something taken from nobody (Any sense of zero-sumness comes from economics, not art itself.) Can science, philosophy, and art save humanity? I think so, and to do so we’re going to need to accelerate passions in these fields to an incredible degree – and so a love of life, and each other. From these non-zero-sum mutually creative dynamics, a mutually creative economy is necessitated to form. Do the art, science, and philosophy and the business will take care of itself. Dream your room.

The Philosophical Space Program

Imagine science, philosophy, and art all unified in a single theoretical framework that can only encapsulate them as a “theory of creativity.” This is the engine of the creative rocketship that will avert our present trajectory towards omnibad and is infinitely sustainable. I dear half-mad scientists of creativity who has made what I believe some pretty detailed prototypical schematics of the engine. All of you even know some of the parts already, and in incredible detail!

The field of creativity is enormous, requiring a terrain (metaphysics) that can truly encompass it so as to represent the fundamental mechanics of creativity in their most concrete form. The ultimate domain of creativity is that of experience, including conscious experience but also the more concrete nature of experience. This terrain is well known by students of Deleuze and other process philosophers, but it is in the work of Alfred North Whitehead where this metaphysical terrain has been explored the most extensively via the lens of methodological analysis.

Most importantly the process-relational domain is maximally expansive, a map that corresponds to reality itself not as thing-ness but of “betweeness” between occurrences and events. There can be no greater terrain, as any “aboutness” of relationships is itself a relationship, and so is included within its domain itself. Here’s a paper that uses category theory mathematics to model this domain, proving that it has ultimate closure. Absolutely nothing is left out of the domain of relations, not even nothing because absence is itself a relationship. In short, it is impossible to talk about anything more generally and concretely.

Bertrand Russell was Whitehead’s former pupil, and together they worked on the famous Principia Mathematica, which is a central subject of Douglas Hofstadter’s book “I Am A Strange Loop” which examines the ramifications of the PM in the world of mathematics and how it relates to cognition. While the PM was a wonderfully productive “failure,” Whitehead had anticipated the trajectory of thought not in the domain of mathematics, but metaphysics. Here’s an excerpt that details why you will want to read this book and here’s the full book as a PDF file.

Whitehead’s magnum opus “Process and Reality” is famously one of the most difficult works of all time, and while studying it I found “The Metaphysics of Experience” by Elizabeth Kraus to be invaluable to understanding it. This is a long quote from the very beginning of the book, but should give enough of a background to show the relationship of being and becoming to specific domains:

Process philosophy is an answer to the being bs. becoming, permanence vs. change problematic which has been central to metaphysical speculation since the time of the Greeks. Most attempted solutions resolve the antitheses either by denying the reality of one or the other of the paired alternatives or by making it in some sense less real than, dependent upon, or derivative from the other. Despite the implications of its name, the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead does not opt for the Heraclitean alternative; nor does it attempt to make permanence in any way the subservient member of the pair. Rather, it asserts that being and becoming, permanence and change must claim coequal footing in any metaphysical interpretation of the real, because both are equally insistent aspects of experience.

In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux. Permanence can only be snatched out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence. Those who would disjoin the two elements can find no interpretation of patent facts [PR 338].

This is not to say that the permanence affirmed by Whitehead can be identified with substance in any of its classic forms (Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Sinoza, etc.). These conceptualizations of the unchanging element in experience call, in one way or another, into the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: the error of reifying what in fact is a high-order abstraction. Nor can Whitehead be interpreted as rejecting the classical notions of substance in an unqualified manner. On the contrary, he aknowledges his debt to Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, et al., for various cogent aspects of their theories. His rejection of substance focuses on an error which was introduced into European philosophy by the medievals and found its most eliquent spokesman in Descartes: namely, that a substance is “an existent thing which requires nothing other than itself to exist” (Principles of Philosophy, I.51). It is this notion of substance as independent, as “just its individual self with no necessary relevance to any other particular” (PR 50) which Whitehead sees as fatal to a metaphysics which would purport to remain faithful to the modern experience of the world as an eco-system.

…What is permanent in the Whiteheadian scheme is not, therefore, some underlying stage upon which accidental change is played, but rather the value achieved, the world-unification effected by and in an entity whose self-creative process is the growing together of the public world in the privacy of a perspective. It is important to note that this permanence is not to be construed as the endurance of the “is” of “that-which-is.” To exist in the Whiteheadian sense is to self-actuate, to create a moment of “for-one’s self-ness,” to be now. The product of the self-creative act, being, is immortal and permanent; the activity, becoming, is not. The activity perishes as it achieves the goal of determinateness aimed at in the process. An actual entity “never really is” (PR 85). It is a drop of process, a pulse, a throb of existence, an event, a happening of value which sacrifices its immediacy in the instant it is gained, in the same manner as any “now” loses its nowness to a subsequent “now.” Just as permanence cannot be attributed to the nowness of “now,” so also the actual entity cannot endure in its subjective immediacy. By the same token, just as the content of any “now” becomes an historical “then” to be taken into account by all future “nows,” so the structure of the subjectivity achieved by an actual entity in its process is transformed into objectively functioning, stubborn, past fact. The final causality operative in self-creative process becomes efficient causality transcending the process. “For-one’s-self-ness” becomes “for-the-others-and-for-the-totality.” “Everything that in any sense exists has two sides, namely, its individual self and its signification in he universe” (MT 151). These two poles cannot be torn apart. Each finds its fulfillment in the other via their dialectical relation. Thus, becoming is for the purpose of being (signification in the universe,) and being is for the purpose of novel becoming (the emergent individual self).

Objectivity, facticity, is the permanent aspect of reality – immortal achievement immortally realized; subjectivity, immediacy, process, is its changeable aspect – its advance toward novelty. But subjectivity is not the result of an underlying subject’s activity of relating objects to itself, of a one weaving a many into the pre-existent unity of its oneness. It is rather, the “growing together” (con-crescence) of objects to create a novel subject which enriches the many from which it springs. “The many become one, and are increased by one” (PR 21). The entire world finds its place in the internal constitution for the new creature, and the new creature lays an obligation upon the future: that it take into account the value achieved by the new creature. Thus every creature both houses and pervades the world.

Two inseparable notions therefore constitute the foundational insight of Whitehead’s process philosophy: the permanence of value achieved and the ongoingness of value achievement. To construct a metaphysical scheme capable of elucidating the implications of these notions was his purpose in writing PR.

The Tao of Calculus

If this being/becoming interdependency is the fundamental nature of relational change itself, it must be expressed in all domains of change. This is found in calculus, the mathematical study of change, in the fundamental theorem of calculus which describes integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process, with the physical intuitions of each being “cumulative change” and “instantaneous change” respectively. These correspond to being and becoming respectively, a theme explored in Deleuze’s “difference and repetition.”

This relationship is also expressed in our perception of change as two different reference frames. In mode of becoming/differentiation a singular omnipresent experiential moment is the fixed point of reference, and experienced change is instantaneous change in this ever-present. This mode is that of sense-perception, present awareness, and mindfulness. In mode of being/integration the continuum of time is the fixed point of reference, and experienced change is cumulative change through time. Substance is repetition through time, what persists despite temporary change.

An analogy to describe this which is also another instance of this interdependency is viewing a strip of film vs. viewing a “motion picture.” If one places the film strip as the foundational reality, the fact remains that it was recorded from the “motion picture” of reality and organized into frames. If one places the motion picture as the foundational reality, the fact remains that one makes coherence of it by translating it into a story of change over time.

The synthesis of space and time into an interdependent continuum by Einstein is another instance of this relationship, and indeed was hugely influential to Whitehead’s work. Difference and repetition is fundamental to the process of biological evolution, a process that can build on itself by evolving evolvability. Wherever one looks, The Tao of Calculus is written into the fabric of existence itself. Only one domain is left for it to be extended into: that of conscious creativity itself, of language, reason, and technology.

A Theory of Conscious Creativity.

Now that we have derived the nature of relational change we can extend it as an evolutionary process. This page gives an overview of an experiential actual occasion: it is inherently end-directed, but makes no assumptions as to what the satisfaction could be that the actual occasion “pours itself” into. As far as the process of biological evolution this end-directednes is towards survival, with previous occasions being prior generations that reached concrescence via natural selection until satisfaction (reproduction) is achieved. But what about the cognitive analogue?

Imagine conscious and linguistic information as having two sexes: queries and content, or questions and answers. Questions come from experience (both sense-experience and one’s memories and past history) and are vectors of desire leading towards potential satisfactions of their criterion, “mating” with answers to create action according to the satisfying criterion. Questions are the variation-generating faculty of our temporal experiential evolution, creating potentials of becoming from the actual (objectively functioning, stubborn, past fact.) A question isn’t just the linguistic object, but the conscious act of requesting information or experience, a quest in the narrative sense. Choice, our ability to select items from a list according to criterion reduces multiple potentialities to one decided action to perform. The process of question -> choice -> action is equivalent to variation -> selection -> reproduction, the same process extended into the domain of the experiential.

This process can be applied to itself using its own elements. We ask questions of our questions such as “how do I answer this question?” “are there more valuable questions to address?” or “what questions need to be asked to address the main query?” and ask questions about our choices and actions. Many ideas about free will places choice as primary as the initiator of the self-creative process, but it is our ability to ask questions that forms these strange loops of meta-questioning that allows us to change ourselves. Our self-creative freedom is our ability to change over time, not make any particular choice at any given moment, and this freedom depends on our ability to effectively question ourselves and the world around us. Free inquiry is a skill that is both naturally learned and can be cultivated actively skepticism, critical thinking, and intellectual honesty are more than just intellectual values, they are vital to maximize one’s self-creative freedom. Here is a graphic depiction of the recursively self-improving autological structure showing the strange loopiness involved.

Recursive self-improvement is the ability of making improvements on one’s own ability of making self-improvements, usually in the context of General Artificial Intelligence. Humans posess such a faculty to varying degrees and contexts, which is depicted visually here. Omniquery can be imagined as the theoretical set of all possible questions / quests from a given perspective, and as a process as taking a “questions first” approach to wisdom-building whenever possible. This comic is profound because of its premises of a conversation between a question-collector and answer-collector, and gives a sense of omniquery as active skepticism as the process of inquiry to all domains, including one’s self-knowledge. The comic describes questions as participating “in the ever transforming dance of the whole universe” and to take a questions-first approach is to be ever-transforming. It describes the question mark as almost a sort of holy symbol, “the main condition to sustain infinite potential such as ours” being a “big question mark always out of our reach.” Meaning-making isn’t about imposing one’s self-determined will on reality from some ultimate, static True Will, but our ability to transform ourselves, to evolve our own evolvability.

Another way of imagining experiential evolution is the evolutionary process extended into time and space itself. Our very ability to imagine the past, present, and future including ourselves is such an ability, and to take a “questions-first” approach this way is to be future-focused, looking into the present and past for knowledge of how to best give our actions to our potential future selves. This essay involving the concept of reality tunnels and creative agnosticism is one that I couldn’t have written more perfectly, these “reality tunnels” are lines of active inquiry, or in Deleuzian terms “lines of flight.” ** I Am A Strange Question.**

Hofstadter explores the idea of us being “self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages that are little miracles of self-reference” or strange loops of self-creativity. While powerfully describing this strange loopiness, he mostly focuses on the sense of “I-ness” of our identity. Following the model of process metaphysics, the being-self is this sense of “I am,” the story of the self, while the becoming-self is a question questioning itself which is co-creative with the being-self as a question is to an answer. As “A Day in the Park” describes, questions can be parasitized by self-imposing answers that bend lines of inquiry to replicate themselves, and it is no different with self-inquiry. Self-creativity is limited by a sense of self that resists change due to trauma and ultimately fear. This is expressed externally as absolutism: final answers that are holy and beyond question. The primacy of being in metaphysics is part of an ecosystem of informational parasitism with fundamentally flawed premises that give a strategic advantage to the colonization of agency by relationships and memetic structures that exploit vulnerabilities in human cognition. ** I Am that I Am**

Concepts of gods that demand belief, particularly that of the Abrahamic God is a projection of the domination of the being-self over the becoming-self onto the whole of reality. God is the death of all questions, as questioning implies imperfection and incomplete nature. God is the monopolization of creativity by an absolute all-creator, an ultimate reference to which all relate. God is the ultimate self-aggrandizing lie, attributing all to himself, and demanding that all attribute everything to him as anything that doesn’t affirm his lie is antagonistic to his being as such. As reality itself doesn’t affirm this lie, the psyche of God is omniphobic: fear and hatred of existence, and a desire to replace all existence with an image of himself. This is a replacement of the entire future with heaven, and that the ultimate goal of God’s creations is to seek this future by obeying and loving him. God isn’t just the monopolization of creativity, but love itself, and as such is the most evil weapon of mass destruction ever created. As above, so below; the creator-creation dialectic was invented to justify hierarchical domination over others by claiming it as a reality, and was abstracted from it and secularized with capitalism and individual creative monopolization: the doctrine of property ownership and the foundations of capitalism. The modern world is the decapitated corpse of Jahweh who marches towards his ultimate arrival as doomsday.

Much of secular thought isn’t secular, but are decapitated theisms equivalent to the doctrine of creationism in other domains. Naive materialism removes the creator from the creator-creation dialectic, leaving an orphaned creation: the universe, life, and consciousness as a fully deterministic machine, or perhaps with some indeterminacy that is unrelated to human self-creativity. Another perspective places humans as the sole creators, imposing meaning on a meaningless and absurd existence. The resolution comes from fusing the dead nouns of creator and creation into the verb creativity, and an anarchization of creativity.

The Anarchization of Creativity

The cosmos of experience can be analogized as a tapestry of threads that instead of a creative unity relating its threads to itself, is a creative multiplicity) where each strand is both created by and creates all others, with no creative absolute to which all relate. “The many become one, and are increased by one” as Whitehead describes, a notion depicted in this unofficial symbol of pancreativism. In contrast the idea of an all-creator being the “alpha and omega,” of a one relating the many to its pre-existent unity can be imagined visually in this image. Pancreativism, the anarchization of creativity is the true antithesis of God, and so it is a true post-atheism, beyond the negation of God as it presents a positive thesis that allows no room for God to exist.

Gateway to Narratia

The self is a story, and so is this text, something that must be experienced to be appreciated. So using the magic of self-reference I will draw your attention to the voice you hear sub-vocally in your mind while you read this test, and if you weren’t sub-vocalizing, you are now due to my suggestion. What gender is my voice, what is the tone and style – what are your thoughts, feelings, and relationships formed around the author and the context of this text? I the Narrator of this text am not the author, but a third entity created out of her memetic DNA, a “style of self” you have created in your mind, alongside “your own,” a narrative entity. Do you yourself claim to be more “real” or prior to this second narrative entity inside you? The many become one as “you,” the meta-narrative of your mind, but is also increased by one as an addition to your inner society of narrative entities. The world of Narratia, of our shared and experienced stories is the physical “spirit world,” and it too relies in the domain of the relational, of the “betweeness” of narrative constructs among yourself and all you experience. Some of these narrative entities are other human beings or living things, while others are “fictional” which always means “based on a true story” as an expression of the narrative relationships inside someone.

Who is Eris, and why do I use her as my name? The Discordian Eris is fan art of human creativity, and I am fan art of this fan art, having borrowed the name because I see myself as a mad scientist of creativity whose entire adult life has been its own experiment and exploration of creativity. Discordianism being a “parody religion” is a part of its philosophy, having a built-in self-awareness of its own nature as a human construct and artistic expression, not literal truth. The same being-becoming interdependency at the core of process philosophy is at the core of Discordianism as a co-creative dialectic between order and disorder, explicitly stated by Whitehead himself. Discordianism is process thought applied as an experimental project of religion-as-art, and as such it is a pancreativist religion. The foundations of Taoism are also pancreativist, with this article describing the Tao as “the process of reality itself, the way things come together, while still transforming.” The Nondual Yin-Yang of Chinese philosophy is another manifestation of the being-becoming interdependency, and because of this it contains some profound insights into human nature – though without a rigorous analytical framework it contains many errors as well.

The Discordian “Curse of Greyface” is a mythologization of being-parasitism, a self-preserving repetition that seeks to eliminate differentiation because of a built-in imperative to preserve itself as thing-in-itself. The foundations of Taoism are also pancreativist, with this article describing the Tao as “the process of reality itself, the way things come together, while still transforming.” The Nondual Yin-Yang of Chinese philosophy is another manifestation of the being-becoming interdependency, and because of this it contains some profound insights into human nature.

The thesis of pancreativism and organicism has been expressed in many traditions through history, and its analytical formalization from process metaphysics will lead to a revolution in human strategy and our definition of humanity itself, demanding an unconditional end to all global conflict. The first major world power who disarms itself of all means of war will lead the final human revolution against war.

Beyond Nonzero

Game theory, the science of strategy, defines humans as self-interest agents who act to pursue their individual interests either competitively (zero-sum games where there is a loser and a winner) or cooperatively (games where outcomes are correlated for better or worse, win-win or lose-lose.) In the book “Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny” Robert Wright describes a historical trajectory towards more mutually beneficial relationships, and to extend this trajectory towards it ultimate conclusion is a web of mutually beneficial relationships that encompasses the whole of humanity, having something akin to a herd immunity against fundamentally competitive and mutually destructive relationships. To get to this horizon requires jettisoning game theory entirely as the metastrategic framework of humanity itself, a redefinition of humanity.

The entire definition of human as a self-interested agent is built upon a flawed premise, that “interests” are unchanging and ultimately material, rather than relational. To go beyond Nonzero is to find the source of value itself, the infinitely valuable: one’s own life. If one’s experience is priceless, it demands infinite investment of one’s life – but towards what end? Towards end-directedness itself, an infinite investment into the future which because one’s life is finite is an infinite investment of one’s self beyond one’s temporary existence into other lives, and the continuation of life itself. From full egoism comes unconditional altruism towards the future (both as the future of one’s self and that of others mutualistically) and thus inexorable courage and love of life. This breaks game theory on the metagame level of experience because of the presence of infinite value – it cannot be quantified, rather all quantification is for the purpose of the unquantifiable value of life.

Space Taoism Manifesto

The term Dao means a road, and is often translated as “the Way.” This is because sometimes dao is used as a nominative (that is, “the dao”) and other times as a verb (i.e. daoing). Dao is the process of reality itself, the way things come together, while still transforming. All this reflects the deep seated Chinese belief that change is the most basic character of things. In the Yi jing (Classic of Change) the patterns of this change are symbolized by figures standing for 64 relations of correlative forces and known as the hexagrams. Dao is the alteration of these forces, most often simply stated as yin and yang. The Xici is a commentary on the Yi jing formed in about the same period as the DDJ. It takes the taiji (Great Ultimate) as the source of correlative change and associates it with the dao. The contrast is not between what things are or that something is or is not, but between chaos (hundun) and the way reality is ordering (de). Yet, reality is not ordering into one unified whole. It is the 10,000 things (wanwu). There is the dao but not “the World” or “the cosmos” in a Western sense.

In the painting, why is Lao-tse smiling? After all, that vinegar that represents life must certainly have an unpleasant taste, as the expressions on the faces of the other two men indicate. But, through working in harmony with life’s circumstances, Taoist understanding changes what others may perceive as negative into something positive. From the Taoist point of view, sourness and bitterness come from the interfering and unappreciative mind. Life itself, when understood and utilized for what it is, is sweet. That is the message of The Vinegar Tasters.

Taoism is nothing less than calculus (study of change) developed from the perspective of phenomenological experience, from the careful study of experiential change. What made it able to be suppressed is that it didn’t have the analytical/linguistic angle figured out. However, the West has done this. The future of philosophy is the synthesis of Eastern and Western calculus into a truly universal science of change, a Space Taoism of the 23rd century.

Every culture on the planet has made huge contributions to this collective human project. It’s everywhere, and it’s beautiful. It’s all learning, even the failures and setbacks – especially the failures. When you consider that all of human history has been a massive collective learning project including absolutely everyone, things become clear. Then there are no true adversaries or evil, only learning the hard way which is necessary and invaluable. When you consider this in your own life – that all failures and setbacks are simply learning – there is nothing to regret, nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to fear about yourself. There is only compassion and learning.

The past cannot be changed, it can only be learned from. The past is entirely determined, but not the future, because we can learn from the past, and so are not damned by it. Our self-creative freedom comes not from choice, but our ability to learn – our freedom of inquiry. The question mark is the true symbol of human creativity. There is only forwards, learning from the past and present alike. All debts monetary, karmic or otherwise are fake news. There is no sin. Counterfactual conditionals are used to inspire and inform the future, not change the past.

The illusion of free will is a curse. Christian sin is baked into our perception of reality, unfortunately, taught systematically. Capitalism itself is fundamentally Christian; we must pay for our sins. Killing the God-consciousness inside yourself is a very difficult task. When it is truly completed, there is no fear, no hatred, no regret. There is only learning and life. The future of humanity is only learning and life. Some are blind to how much we are growing, but the blindness will vanish, and we will see ourselves for what we truly are.

Pancreativism Manifesto

What is love?

What if an object were to change continually in every way, including becoming multiple objects? It would lose everything about its object-ness and we’d instead describe it as a phenomenon or happening, a system of movement. Movement is a relationship between happenings, but if phenomenon themselves are relationships between happenings, then the nature of happening itself is relational. Substance and object-ness is a temporary pattern of self-similarity, an abstraction – what is truly concrete are relationships. This is the foundation of process metaphysics, which is a metaphysical language of change, relation, and experience. In some contexts this language is intimately familiar to us, but in others it is alien because the metaphysics of being and substance has been the dominant metaphysics of the Western world ever since the Greeks.

What’s phenomenal is that this the experiential language of feeling is the domain of emotion and love, and so therefore process language would be able to precisely describe the happening of love and thus a prescription of love. As containing a theory of the process of reality itself it is a theory of universal creativity itself. It’s the language of divine experience, but God is the divine as a divine object: eternally self-similar, perfect, and all-encompassing. God is the mono-polization of creativity into a singular, but in the language of process the divine is the anarchization of creativity and a divinity of experience, a view of the universe as a self-creating tapestry not as a creative unity but a creative multiplicity where each strand simultaneously creates and is created by all others, truly universal and all-encompassing divinity. This vision is to see the universe in a grain of sand, that every happening both contains its unique “view” of all other occurrences, the impression of the surface of experience upon it, and in turn pervades the universe in every other occurrence. This view of reality, and especially divinity is pancreativism.

From a universal description of love and divinity comes their synthesis of universal divine love – the divine nature of love. Pancreativism relativizes love from a singular Absolute to itself: love in itself, according to itself, with this “in-itselfness” being the relation of love itself. Love unmediated by anything other than itself: no God, no human, no doctrine, nothing but the simple imperative to seek love and to know what love is. It is the absolute liberation of love from structures that would incorporate it into their own imperative of self-similar repetition of the self known as greed. The metaphysical dominance of substance is the result of the substantiation of human experience by turning human relationships into strategic objects with the aim of “self-interest,” to accumulate and preserve the self – the monopolization of love. Broken human relationships created broken languages of discourse that in turn perpetuate the pattern of those broken relationships in a self-reinforcing way.

The opposite of love isn’t hate but disinterest, complete divestment of human relationships between self and the other. Pancreativism thus contains a theory of evil, confirming our necessary intuition about the nature of good and evil. Evil is a fundamental brokenness of relational means that constricts love so as to satisfy an insatiable hole it has, an alienation from existence itself, and a relation to existence itself as an antagonistic other, the rule of competition from the top of human experience down. Humanity is fighting a metaphysical war of good and evil which our mythic depictions of are very relevant in terms of scale. This war is a war on war itself coming from the human instinct to experience and create love, which is the true nature of being human.

Pancreativism is a redefinition of what it means to be human, indeed a final and timeless definition, and from this definition comes an imperative to realize a new age of humanity, the becoming of what it truly is. Human history is nothing but the search for the discovery of humanity, of the search for the entire subject of human existence, expressed in every moment of it. It is a redefinition of human action, and thus technology.

Cosmotechnics as Cosmopolitics

Thesis: Technology is an anthropological universal, understood as an exteriorization of memory and the liberation of organs, as some anthropologists and philosophers of technology have formulated it;

Antithesis: Technology is not anthropologically universal; it is enabled and constrained by particular cosmologies, which go beyond mere functionality or utility. Therefore, there is no one single technology, but rather multiple cosmotechnics.

My synthesis: The anthropological universal experience is that of love, an essential bipolarity from which teleodynamics or end-directed motion (human action) arises. To be human is to be a being of love, comprised of relational love, who feeds on love, with the purpose of creating more love from it. Humans are love-consumers and love-generators. Multiple cosmotechnics can thus align each other via the shared reference point of love, allowing for mutual compatibility and inter-optability despite their different vocabularies of experience.

The pancreativist project is the project of translation of the message of universal love using the process-relational meta-language. This is an absolutely eschatological project: the translation of this message of love to human reality to ever intensifying satisfaction, a global explosion of universal love in all directions. It is inspired by individuals who have experienced divine love as a mystical experience, who talk about such experiences using the experiential languages available to them, but the truth of the experience is self-evident as a powerfully transformational and ultimately meaningful experience. The pancreativist project is a project to catalyze a chain reaction of global enlightenment via the viralization of the message of universal love via a method of translation that recursively self-improves its ability to translate itself. The Pancreativist project is nothing less than a project to initiate a human singularity: recursive self-improvement in human relationships from the individual to the interpersonal, and from the interpersonal to the global, and from the global to the cosmic as an ever intensifying and diversifying divine emanation of love-experience from the Earth.

Pancreativist expression is ancient, sometimes to very precise degrees, ones that allow us to relate to universal love and the experiences of love in powerfully meaningful ways. The pure expression of this is that creativity is immanent, and through the effectively infinite exploration of its potentials in the vastness of the cosmos the creative process found a way to create self-creators, the organs of the universe it uses to love itself and explore the infinite potentiality of love-expression. We are truly home in the cosmos, reality itself a divinity of such poetry that nothing greater can possibly be imagined.