Why you should know of ’Pataphysics, Part 2

You may want to read part 1 first.

Andrew Hugill says in ‘Pataphysics: A Useless Guide:

It is generally agreed that [pataphysics] lies around the roots of many of the key artistic and cultural developments of the twentieth century, including absurdism, Dada, futurism, surrealism, situationism, and others….

You may wonder, if that is the case, why haven’t you heard about it before (or if you have: great!).  Well:

Unlike other, more familiar, ‘isms’ that have been fully documented and historicized, pataphysics has managed to retain its vibrancy by perpetually eluding ‘ism’ism.  It has never fully become either a ‘movement’ or a ‘philosophy,’ even though at times it shares some characteristics with both of those.

Oh elusive ’pataphysics.  A good ’pataphysician refuses to belong to a group that would have him/her as a member (yes, the Marx Brothers’ humor is often ’pataphysical).

In avoiding becoming an –ism and avoiding an easy, finite definition, ’pataphysics still is not an accept-anything-wild entity; Hugill says:

It is important to understand what distinguishes pataphysics from other ‘radical,’ ‘anarchic,’ or ‘left-of-field’ impulses.  The word is often used quite loosely to evoke anything that seems wacky, weird, or bizarrely incomprehensible.  This is a misrepresentation which this book hopes to correct.

And the book indeed does so.  Anyway, the point is, ’pataphysics is still a “science,” still a system, even though it seeks to include exceptions/anomalies.

Although it served as an influence to surrealism, surrealism is different, functioning from the subconscious, going with the automatic, engaging (and believing in) chance.

On a personal note, while I acknowledge the amazing properties of the subconscious and allowing the subconscious to help me in my work, I acknowledge that it is a finite thing that is a part of a system that composes me.  I don’t exactly believe in chance (and that rejection does not mean I believe in fate!); I admit to being a determinist, to believing that these systems that compose me (biologically and abstractly) and systems that are (seemingly) external all contribute to what is possible in my existence.  But—that doesn’t mean that the systems themselves cannot change; possibilities alter and expand.  (My point is, there is not pure free will or pure chance: everything has a context.)

And once again, I seem to need to halt myself, to ensure that the post remains post-size—what I expect you regard as a nice-sized textual construction.  And in the context of having this expectation, I halt this here now, and I let there be possibilities for you to navigate further or withdraw.

What is chance?  Is believing in chance a form of ignorance of the influence of context?

What is freedom?  Is believing in freedom a form of ignorance of the influence of context?