AS PUBLISHED BY THE COLLÉGE DE ’PATAPHYSIQUE

AND THE LONDON INSTITUTE OF ’PATAPHYSICS

OR,

A DEFENSE OF ANTIPATAPHYSICS

Published November 2023. Updated August 2024.

Newcomers to pataphysics^[1] may be repulsed by what follows: an arcane and somewhat vulgar disagreement between meaningless entities whose judgements and opinions ultimately lack any authority.^[2]

But we feel strongly that these matters — setting aside for a moment the question of seriousness — are nevertheless important to speak about plainly and to resolve.

As an organization that encourages the discovery and celebration of pataphysics, and whose selfsame values were implicitly misdoubted by the review at hand, we of the The Pataphysical Society of New York (PataNYC) feel compelled to abandon our longstanding non-involvement on matters of pataphysical doctrine and dogma so that we may explain the controversy and issue a countervailing perspective.

What has happened?

Not long ago, the Collège de ’Pataphysique (henceforth the College), based in Paris, and its British affiliate, the London Institute of ’Pataphysics (henceforth the LIP), published in French and English respectively, a review^[3] by Bernard Martin, of a recent collection of essays entitled ’Pataphysics Unrolled.^[4]

In republishing the review, the LIP sought to emphasize its conclusions “not only because we find ourselves in agreement with Bernard Martin’s opinions, but because it contains certain doctrinal observations of a more general interest worth sharing with our members.” These doctrinal observations dominate the review, which barely considers or evaluates the contents of the essays in the book and instead dismisses their line of inquiry out-of-hand.

And if that were the extent of the write-up, we would have no occasion to comment. For after all, pataphysics is (ostensibly) an irreducible concept that transcends consideration from outside of itself. Attempts to make pataphysics useful, or to "explain" pataphysics, or otherwise besmirch its state of perfection by rendering its purity of abstraction into crude and Earthly terms, will necessarily be regarded contemptuously by the College as well as by any devotedly unserious pataphysician. Academic inquiry especially aggravates this form of insult to pataphysics by professionalizing the project of generalizing the particular.

For their part, the book’s editors anticipated these objections from the likes of the College and made it a point to disclose the contradiction intrinsic to their work in the volume’s introduction, noting: “It is indeed true that a strict pataphysician might argue — in tone equally serious and tongue-in-cheek — everything is, of course, ultimately pataphysical; pataphysics is, after all, ‘the science.’ But rather than posit one definition of what could or could not be considered pataphysical, this volume chooses to show a variety of ways in which the term has been applied and understood.”^[5]

So wherein lies the dispute? Let us examine Martin’s objections in detail. Denuded from its rhetorical drapery, his review makes these specific claims:

1. The writers seem to lack awareness of all the “essential” elements of pataphysics
2. The writers are apparently not familiar with Sandomir^[6]
3. The writers of the book attempt to trace influence within the history of cultural avant-gardes
4. The presence of pataphysics within the writers’ disciplines is obvious and unimportant
5. The contributors use certain terms differently than Jarry
6. The book’s list of people influenced by pataphysics does not include enough members from The College
7. The occasion for the review is the editors’ use of the “Collegial” apostrophe

Finally, in light of these points, Martin concludes that ’Pataphysics Unrolled is an inappropriately serious work of “unconscious pataphysics.” It is here where our disagreement arises, since that conclusion and the underlying claims contain numerous errors, which we are now compelled to identify and correct.

Errors and Corrections

Claim 1. The writers seem to lack awareness of all the “essential” elements of pataphysics

Martin first asserts that pataphysics is like a machine whose “components are the various elements and principals [sic] proposed by Jarry, Sandomir and a few others.” Further, he says, the presence of all these elements is “essential.”

We find these prefatory arguments to be among the review’s most provocative. The thinking supposes that Jarry, Sandomir, and a few others are responsible for the elements of pataphysics. It asserts that the textual writings left by certain mortal pataphysicians of the 19th and 20th centuries are the sole sources of authority for matters of pataphysical doctrine. And it implies that the global community of pataphysicians has agreed on what these essential elements are in the first place. All of these assumptions are, of course, wrong.

It is actually an incomprehensible position to regard pataphysics as solely the sum of Jarry’s work and that of his successors. For pataphysics preceded Jarry and would have existed without him. Jarry did not invent pataphysics, nor did Sandomir, and their lives did not overlap.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with Jarry or Sandomir. They are eloquent and well-informed on matters of pataphysics. But their contributions to the Science are not, cannot, and could not ever be “essential”  — for there is no essence of pataphysics.

Did not Sandomir himself say as much? Consider his remarks to the pataphysicians of Buenos Aires:

“Is there any need to wish ‘Pataphysics well in Buenos Aires? It was there before we came into existence, and it can do without the lot of us. It will always exist and will do without us altogether. It can even do without existing for it does not even need to exist in order to exist.”^[7]

We cannot say for certain whether pataphysics must resemble  a machine, but we can say with great confidence that it does not conform to the singular definition which Martin proposes without any evidence or citations. The writers’ awareness of or adherence to his criteria is therefore inconsequential.

Claim 2. The writers are apparently not familiar with Sandomir

Even if this were true, we cannot see how it is troubling. Pataphysics is not constrained by the precedents or methods of past pataphysicians. Indeed, it would be quite dull and limited if it were. Martin is certainly entitled to prefer the writers and thinkers that he wishes to encounter, but he is not free to impose his tastes on the practices of others. Thus, we view his complaint as merely a matter of style rather than substance, and there is no need to give it any further consideration.

Claim 3. The writers of the book attempt to trace influence within the history of cultural avant-gardes

We don’t contend the fact that this is true, only the extent to which it is a problem. We will take up that point in depth in the section below entitled Antipataphysics and Seriousness.

Claim 4. The presence of pataphysics within the writers’ disciplines is obvious and unimportant

We take no issue with this claim.

Claim 5. The contributors use certain terms differently than Jarry

Though it appears in the form of an innocuous lexical disagreement, this claim is in fact a pretext for Martin’s numerous distasteful prejudices, which we feel obliged to expose. Consider exactly what he writes:

According to many of the contributors to this book, the pataphysical nature of whatever they care to consider is established by the fact that it bears some relation to certain properties, and these almost always consist of one or two of the following: antimony, anomaly, clinamen, syzygy. Not only is this list of properties very partial, it is also a little peculiar, because while the first two terms are close, respectively to pataphysical notions of opposites and their equivalence, and to Jarry’s idea of a science of exceptions, they are not the terms habitually used. Jarry described Pataphysics as studying “the laws that govern exceptions” not anomalies, and only has to substitute the one in this phrase to see that they are not synonymous. Syzygy likewise is not referenced at all in Jarry’s “Elements of Pataphysics” [sic] or the other places where he or anyone else writes directly about the Science — apart from Professor [Andrew] Hugill. And this is perhaps why this vocabulary is given such prominence in the various essays here: this same list of the properties of ’Pataphysics can be found in Professo[r] Hugill’s book. So we are driven to the conclusion that this “Useless Guide” with its naively appropriate title, is one of the principal sources of information for many of the contributors … which explains quite a lot. The question one asks oneself, over and again, is why do these people want to associate their efforts with something they seem to understand so superficially?^[8]

As earlier, Martin insists that the essays in ’Pataphysics Unrolled are missing certain unspecified elements of pataphysics. That and their shared references to “syzygy” lead Martin to infer some doctrinal connection to Hugill via his 2012 book, Pataphysics: A Useless Guide, which devotes some consideration to the term.^[9] Martin thus overlooks the many others who have used the term “syzygy” in relation to pataphysics^[10] and, most notably, Christian Bök, whose ’Pataphysics: Poetics of an Imaginary Science^[11] preceded Hugill’s book in publication by 10 years and is indeed included among its references. ^[12]

Martin evidently harbors some previous dislike for Hugill that is not explained in the review yet which serves as the basis for his deduction that the books’ contributors are naive and superficial pataphysicians.^[13] But it is Martin’s arguments that are superficial. He complains: “Is it not remarkable that out of the 18 essays in this academic publication, only three cite even a single source in French?”^[14] And so his same bias reappears, propagating the falsehood that an idea rendered en français rings truer than in other languages. However, we must be emphatic: the language of pataphysics is not French. Nor is it Armenian^[15], nor mathematics, etc. There is no language of pataphysics. Thus, no prevalence of languages or lack thereof should be used to assess pataphysical merit.

If Martin would confine his distasteful prejudices to simply an aesthetic preference for his vernacular tongue, that might be excused as mere buffoonery, but his bigotry is in fact far more insidious. In another example, he assails the subject of one of the essays in Unrolled – the artworks of James E. Brewton – as “dismal” without any further elaboration, exclaiming, “Equivalence has its limits!” He reprises the same insult later against Hugill, declaring that “Inutility has limits too…” That he espouses these heresies in such an offhand fashion — and merely to signal his irrelevant dislike for the subjects the writers have chosen to consider — betrays a worrisome state of Martin’s intellectual integrity.

But perhaps the most dispiriting non-argument from Martin is his admission that he didn’t even read the entirety of the book under review, especially preferring to skip its more challenging passages: “There are some [essays] we could not understand at all or couldn’t be bothered to go to the trouble of understanding since wilful obscurity tends to make one suspect that nothing much of interest is likely to justify the bother of decipherment.” It is a curious revelation that we feel speaks for itself. Ultimately it is he who suffers from such a small and hermetic view of pataphysics.

Treated solely by its rhetorical merits, the claim may be dismissed as suffering a fallacy of relevance — attempting to refute points the writers did not make. We address the larger harm caused by Martin’s prejudices in the section entitled, What is the Pataphysical Society of New York?

Claim 6. The book’s list of people influenced by pataphysics does not include enough members from The College

This is yet another example of the same prejudice we just addressed. Again, the preferences of critics are not the basis upon which either scholars or pataphysicians should undertake their work. Just as there are no essential elements of pataphysics, so there is no minimum number of Collegians that a text must mention to reach some threshold of pataphysical authenticity. Martin’s demand is unreasonable and may be ignored.

Claim 7. The occasion for the review is the editors’ use of the “Collegial” apostrophe
Martin ascribes great significance to the presence of the apostrophe, so we must briefly revisit some key assumptions about what it means and to whom:

• For Faustroll (via Jarry), it is a way to avoid several puns on the word pataphysique.^[16] 
• For Martin and the College, it is to distinguish the conscious practice of Jarry’s Science from a ubiquitous if often unacknowledged quality of existence (i.e. “unconscious pataphysics”).^[17]
• For the editors of ’Pataphysics Unrolled, it is to distinguish between Jarry’s pataphysics and “the delightfully various ways in which artists and writers have conducted experiments in its name.”^[18]

It would therefore seem that the editors and Martin agree in principle on two points: first, what the presence of the apostrophe represents and, second, that the apostrophe’s absence denotes something other than Jarryite / Collegiate pataphysics.

Rather than acknowledge this agreement — which the editors address directly in their Editors Note — Martin reasserts his earlier conclusions that the books’ contributors apprehend Jarryite / Collegiate pataphysics incompletely and superficially. Further, he declares that their “attempts to explain, or even more so, to ‘apply’ ’Pataphysics in this book are almost all pataphysical.” His use and omission of punctuation implies the writers believed they were adhering to Jarryite principles but were actually doing pataphysics without knowing it. In this way, he uses the term “unconscious pataphysics” as a slur, preferring insults over engagement, and ignoring the volume’s line of inquiry entirely.

He continues, declaring falsely that “The apostrophe to the word ’Pataphysics is a usage invented by, and specific to the College”^[19] and thus “signifies conscious ’Pataphysics as understood by the College. This word, therefore has a precise meaning, which has formed the basis for this response to the book in question.”

We are led to believe Martin wouldn’t have bothered writing his review if the book’s editors had omitted the apostrophe – or, presumably, done conscious pataphysics as understood by the College instead of what they actually did. Thus, the crux of the entire dispute seems to rest in distinguishing the contents of ’Pataphysics Unrolled from ’Pataphysics as understood by the College.

Martin places Claim 7 centrally in his dispute (i.e. all the other claims stem from this overarching objection). Therefore we will devote the next section to further dismantling this distinction while providing some necessary context. This includes addressing the outstanding question from Claim 3 (i.e., why tracing influence is a problem), which we will see is related.

Antipataphysics and Seriousness

Let us set aside conscious and unconscious pataphysics for now and examine Martin’s other conclusion about ’Pataphysics Unrolled — that it is too serious. To him, its attempt to explain pataphysics, to trace its influence (particularly as part of an academic project), to do anything useful regarding pataphysics, represents the very opposite of pataphysics (cf. Claim No 3. in the section above).

To understand why Martin feels this way and why so many Collegians may share his view, here again is Sandomir to explain:

“The word College, does that not imply education? Education, does that not imply usefulness, or the pretence of utility? Utility, is that not seriousness? And the word serious, is that not antipataphysical? These terms are all equivalent. And it would be too easy to retort that nothing can be antipataphysical, since everything and beyond, is pataphysical. This is pataphysically self-evident but it does not prevent this Antipataphysics from existing. For it does exist: fully; powerfully; aggressively. In what does it consist? Ah! This is where the argument turns around: it is precisely ignorance of its own pataphysical nature and this ignorance is all its pugnacity, its power, its fullness and the root of its being. The seriousness of God and of men, the usefulness of services and works, the gravity and weight of teachings and systems are antipataphysical only because they know neither how to proclaim themselves to be, nor how to want to be pataphysical; as for their being it, they cannot do otherwise.”^[20] 

So we are left with two questions:

• Is ’Pataphysics Unrolled serious?
• Is the pataphysics of ’Pataphysics Unrolled conscious or conscious?

Because Sandomir and Martin are imprecise in describing the relationships of these qualities and terms, it is necessary to bring about the following matrix (Figure 1), which completes the ideas implied by their writings, in order to hold them accountable to their words.

Figure 1.

*Per Martin

†Per Sandomir

‡ The existence of Anti-’Pataphysics, postulated here for the first time, completes the model of pataphysical inflections left incomplete by Martin and Sandomir.

The lower left quadrant is the area of greatest interest since that is where Martin locates ’Pataphysics Unrolled. By Sandomir’s thinking, it would have been more precise for Martin to label the book as both pataphysics and antipataphysics, for the one naturally becomes the other. But is the placement itself correct? We must return to our central questions: How can we distinguish serious from unserious? Conscious from unconscious? Pataphysics from antipataphysics? And is there even, in fact, any difference at all?

Counterclaim 1. Seriousness and unseriousness cannot and should not be distinguished.

In principle, their overlap is often intentional. Ironic verisimilitude to the truth is a common rhetorical and literary tactic. Examples from the world of pataphysics include the academic-seeming Cahiers du Collège de 'Pataphysique and the summons issued by Panmuphle in Faustroll, along with ponderous titles of the College and its other various honorifics and formalities accompanied optionally by a wink to give it away.^[21] We wonder if Bernard Martin would have asked Alfred Jarry on his deathbed whether he had been serious or not.

Second, as a matter of practicality, it is impossible to distinguish seriousness from unseriousness. (Figure 2.) The width of their boundary is defined only by the degree to which one promises to himself with a whisper that he is about to act in jest. (Or perhaps he clutches a spiral pendant or lights a viridescent candle to assure himself of his purity.) As there is no reliable instrument or method that can detect degrees of offset from dead-serious, objections on this point are of limited use.

Figure 2.

Pataphysics shown overlapped with anti-pataphysics. The visible boundary is greatly exaggerated due to the limitations of this facsimile and is not illustrative of the actual borders, which are imperceptible.

Counterclaim 2. ’Pataphysics Unrolled is Not Unconscious

We noted earlier that the editors make efforts in their text to acknowledge both the College’s understanding of pataphysics and the banality of unconscious pataphysics.

These disclaimers and distinctions are beside the point for Martin – who on principle fails to engage with the actual ideas being brought to light by the writers. He remains so fixated on the idea that one can’t cogently talk about pataphysics, that he extinguishes the question entirely. (That he represents an organization that has published many volumes of texts about pataphysics is immaterial.)

In declaring up front what they have created, the writers demonstrate that they are conscious of what their text is and what it is not. While the book’s editors contort themselves in the name of transparency, service to the readers, and a love of pataphysics (which may or may not be distinguishable from utility), Martin seems to have withdrawn any effort to meet the writers in good faith.

Counterclaim 2a. ’Pataphysics Unrolled is not a work of pataphysics at all

Just as critically, the authors never present their book as a work of pataphysics.

The writers are quite conscious and precise in describing what they have created – an academic text about works of art and essays, which are connected via some concept or another to pataphysics. Martin collapses the distinction into a single clumsy and imprecise opinion of both. Hence, in taking the time to point out what is not pataphysics, he commits the same ostensible sin as the book does in trying to say what it might be. Equally valid, equally futile.

The effect is that Martin’s insistence itself is a glorious if unintended parody. For whom does he unwittingly satire with his buffoonish bluster but Père Heb himself?^[22] Could it be that Martin in fact naively discovered pataphysics independently in the course of writing his review?

In any case, we are not alone in feeling unfulfilled by this interpretation of pataphysics. Jean Baudrillard, (a French compatriot and member of the college) encountered this same frustration, and found it to be an untenable and maddening position. He described the ineffable purity required to satisfy the inescapable rigor of pataphysics:

Thus pataphysics is impossible. Must one kill oneself to prove it? Indeed, since it is not serious. But it is exactly this which is its seriousness. Finally, to exalt Pataphysics is to be a pataphysician without knowing it, which is what we are all.^[23]

We do not feel suicide is necessary. Having dispensed with such drastically boring formalities, our response is best rendered pataphysically.

An Imaginary Solution: Pataphysical Overflow

From Baudrilliard, we know of the gaseous nature of pataphysics:

Now, for Pataphysics, all phenomena are absolutely gaseous….We are nothing else, but at the perpetual state of flatulence, the notion of reality is given to us by a certain abdominal concentration of the wind which has not yet been released. The gods and mornings that sing are issued from this obscene gas, accumulated since the world is world and since the pyramidal Ubu digests us before expulsing us pataphysically into the void, obscured by the odor of the re-cooled fart, which would be the end of the world and of all possible worlds.^[24]

The example we have before us – Bernard Martin’s review of  ’Pataphysics Unrolled – is not gaseous. This follows logically since it is not pataphysical (its purpose, of course, being too serious to be considered anything other than unconscious pataphysics). But, like its subject, it emanates from the same source, and proceeds toward the same end. And like its subject, it is conscious of its own relationship to pataphysics, yet continues in its seriousness.

Its physical form must therefore be the opposite of pataphysics itself as well – a solid in place of a gas. With equal and opposite potency they fill the bowels and make their demands; as pataphysics is the flatulence, so anti-pataphysics is the excrement.

It is therefore fair to conclude that Martin’s review is best described as a useless turd.

What is The Pataphysical Society of New York (PataNYC)?

Let us clear the air.

The purpose of the Pataphysical Society of New York, since its founding, has been to:

• Advance the practice and appreciation of the science beyond metaphysics
• Celebrate the life and works of Alfred Jarry and his artistic and philosophical compatriots, engaging even those who are unaware of the Science
• Discover and promote contemporary applications of pataphysics (including antipataphysics)
• Bring pataphysicians together for the enjoyment of their shared company

For we are a society that welcomes conversations, debates, disputes, and questions about all modes and declensions of pataphysics, and which does not mind being anti-pataphysical, unconscious or serious, chimerical or even counterfeit, if it serves our mission.

We especially reject and denounce the harmful prejudices Martin espouses, which attempt to deny the beauty of pataphysics to people who are different from himself. Though we are angry with the LIP and College for this embarrassing affair, and for the deflating experience of having to explain it, we were delighted to return to the texts and ideas that have so often brought us joy, and to have hopefully introduced newcomers to the Science.

Here, as often, we find the answer is in the ampersand, not the apostrophe. We conclude simply with our motto:

NEVER NOT EXCEPT WHEN SO; IF THUS, NOT OR BUT AND!

&&&